| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Inoue, Hiroshi" <h-inoue(at)dream(dot)email(dot)ne(dot)jp>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Hiroshi Saito <hiroshi(at)winpg(dot)jp>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removal of currtid()/currtid2() and some table AM cleanup |
| Date: | 2020-11-20 16:53:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1304031.1605891191@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 2020-09-03 12:14, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Opinions are welcome about the arguments of upthread.
> It appears that currtid2() is still used, so we ought to keep it.
Yeah, if pgODBC were not using it at all then I think it'd be fine
to get rid of, but if it still contains calls then we cannot.
The suggestion upthread that those calls might be unreachable
is interesting, but it seems unproven.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-11-20 17:06:23 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2020-11-20 16:27:00 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |