| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers |
| Date: | 2015-07-02 14:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | 14561.1435845813@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2 July 2015 at 14:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> I'm marking this as "returned with feedback" in the commitfest.
> There are no unresolved issues with the approach, nor is it true it is
> slower. If you think there are some, you should say what they are, not act
> high handedly to reject a patch without reason.
Have you read the thread? There were plenty of objections, as well as
a design for a better solution. In addition, we should think about
more holistic solutions such as Andres' nearby proposal (which I doubt
will work as-is, but maybe somebody will think of how to fix it).
Committing a band-aid will just make it harder to pursue real fixes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-07-02 14:07:13 | Re: raw output from copy |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-07-02 14:02:52 | Re: raw output from copy |