| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: On conflict update & hint bits |
| Date: | 2016-10-23 21:49:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS=aJcNe=mQsag-xwHa-gruXzmcCeQucwFD14A8JgUhOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What's bothering me is (a) it's less than 24 hours to release wrap and
> (b) this patch changes SSI-relevant behavior and hasn't been approved
> by Kevin. I'm not familiar enough with that logic to commit a change
> in it on my own authority, especially with so little time for problems
> to be uncovered.
I should point out that I knew that the next set of point releases had
been moved forward much later than you did. I had to work on this fix
during the week, which was pretty far from ideal for me for my own
reasons.
> I'm okay with adding an explicit buffer lock/unlock pair, and in fact
> plan to go have a look at that in a bit. I'm not okay with doing a
> refactoring that might change the behavior in more ways than that
> under these circumstances.
Fair enough. As long as we do that much, I'm comfortable.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-10-23 21:58:45 | Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-23 21:46:45 | Re: On conflict update & hint bits |