From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly |
Date: | 2017-08-13 22:18:18 |
Message-ID: | 20170813221818.zyfdlgrcazc46mxu@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-08-13 17:43:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
> >> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
> >> case when we can see it coming.
> >
> > Anybody else want to vote that way? For myself it's getting a bit late
> > in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> > to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> > that.
>
> I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
> things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
> that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
> than I'd like.
Similar here, there doesn't seem to be that much urgency.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-08-13 22:36:09 | Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-13 21:47:54 | Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling |