| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |
| 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 |