Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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