| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stefan Huehner <stefan(at)huehner(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates) |
| Date: | 2016-06-07 15:42:27 |
| Message-ID: | 13787.1465314147@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> My personal opinion is that the community should not undertake a "rewrite" of
> a nontrivial feature after freeze. The fact that a progenitor was present in
> the tree at freeze doesn't make the rewrite much less risky than a brand new
> feature. So, I suggest that you instead revert the patches and review that
> rewrite for next CommitFest. Even so, I am okay with your current plan.
TBH, I think the odds are very good that that's how it will end up being;
my standards for committing a large patch a few days before beta2 are
going to be quite high. But I feel it's only fair to offer Tomas the
chance to get something in this year not next year. Also, even though
this can be expected to be heavily-rewritten code, the fact that there
was a progenitor makes it less risky than a truly new patch would be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-07 15:44:17 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-07 15:40:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |