Re: open items for 9.4

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Subject: Re: open items for 9.4
Date: 2014-09-29 18:47:16
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaVOkgeiQYAbUHJ-Y_e1sD3XmF2h7V1vCkxSHnh+i15+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The items I see are:
>
>> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
>> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
>> point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
>> GUC, but if we're going to remove it it should probably happen before
>> beta3. It's going to be impossible to remove once we've released with
>> it, I suspect.
>
> The lack of any documentation for the GUC (neither in config.sgml or
> postgresql.conf.sample) suggests very very strongly that it was not
> meant to be shipped. If we don't remove it I will certainly insist
> that it be documented adequately.
>
> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the
> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime?

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arthur Silva 2014-09-29 18:49:21 Re: jsonb format is pessimal for toast compression
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-09-29 18:46:20 Re: test_shm_mq failing on anole (was: Sending out a request for more buildfarm animals?)