Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing
Date: 2015-09-06 12:25:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-10 07:03:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I was previously a proponent of (2) as a practical way forwards, but my
> proposal here today is that we don't do anything further on 2) yet, and
> seek to make progress on 5) instead.
> If 5) fails to bring a workable solution by the Jan 2016 CF then we commit
> 2) instead.
> If Heikki wishes to work on (5), that's good. Otherwise, I think its
> something I can understand and deliver by 1 Jan, though likely for 1 Nov CF.

I highly doubt that we can get either variant into 9.6 if we only start
to seriously review them by then. Heikki's lsn ranges patch essentially
was a variant of 5) and it ended up being a rather complicated patch. I
don't think using an explicit epoch is going to be that much simpler.

So I think we need to decide now.

My vote is that we should try to get freeze maps into 9.6 - that seems
more realistic given that we have a patch right now. Yes, it might end
up being superflous churn, but it's rather localized. I think around
we've put off significant incremental improvements off with the promise
of more radical stuff too often.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-09-06 12:28:39 Re: Waits monitoring
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-09-06 12:08:32 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing