Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to
Date: 2010-01-31 19:07:47
Message-ID: 14379.1264964867@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> WTF? Simon, this seems to be getting way way beyond anything the
>> community has agreed to. Particularly, inventing GUCs is not something
>> to be doing without consensus.

> If you or anybody else would like me to revoke it then I am happy to do
> that, with no problem or argument. I agree it hasn't had discussion,
> though am happy to have such a discussion.

> The commit is a one line change, with parameter to control it, discussed
> by Heikki and myself in December 2008. I stand by the accuracy of the
> change; the parameter is really to ensure we can test during beta.

Well, I was waiting to see if anyone else had an opinion, but: my
opinion is that a GUC is not appropriate here. Either test it yourself
enough to be sure it's a win, or don't put it in.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-01-31 19:42:55 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Augment WAL records for btree delete with GetOldestXmin() to
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-01-31 19:01:11 pgsql: Detect early deadlock in Hot Standby when Startup is already

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-01-31 19:35:36 Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-01-31 19:00:08 Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL