On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
>> >>(added to commitfest:
>> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=888)
>> > It seems you have added it in current commit fest.
>> > Shouldn't it be added for next CF.
>> Yep. The current CF has been closed to new submissions for two and a
>> half weeks.
> Might this be something to consder for 9.2, though? It could be considered a
>> On the substance of the patch, I believe the reason why this is
>> currently disallowed is because the TLI is implicitly taken from the
>> running system, and on the standby that might be the wrong value.
>> I might be misremembering.
> That is, however, assuming that this part is not true. I don't recall for
> sure, but I have a feeling it might be correct. In which case a much bigger
> patch is needed, and definitely not something for 9.2...
Even if we were to conclude that the argument about TLIs is not valid,
I'd be very reluctant to slip something like this into 9.2, because we
have no time left to recant if it later turns out that there's some
other reason why it's not a good idea. Removing error checks is one
of those things that you want to try to get done early in the release
cycle, because the consequences are sometimes difficult to foresee,
and you may not find out why it was a bad idea until users start
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2012-07-03 12:42:30|
|Subject: Re: Oracle porting sample instr function|
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2012-07-03 12:23:11|
|Subject: Re: huge tlb support|