On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> This would be OK as long as we document it well. We patched the
>>> shutdown the way we did specifically because Fujii thought it would be
>>> an easy fix; if it's complicated, we should revert it and document the
>>> issue for DBAs.
>> I don't understand this comment.
> In other words, I'm saying that it's not critical that we troubleshoot
> this for 9.0. Revering Fujii's patch, if it's not working, is an option.
There is no patch which we could revert to fix this, by Fujii Masao or
anyone else. The patch he proposed has not been committed. I am
still studying the problem to try to figure out where to go with it.
We could decide to punt the whole thing for 9.1, but I'd like to
understand what the options are before we make that decision.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-05-14 22:22:18|
|Subject: Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-05-14 22:11:27|
|Subject: Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal |