| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add wait event for fsync of WAL segments |
| Date: | 2018-07-03 00:55:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20180703005558.GC2159@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 12:23:35PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I wonder if we should backpatch this one all the way to pg10. I don't
> see no reason not to.
ABI breakage (if that's the correct wording?). Simply cherry-picking
the patch from master to back-branches would cause extensions and
plugins already compiled with those versions to be confused by the
ordering of the enum WaitEventIO. Well, one simple solution is to
simply put the new event purposefully at the bottom of the list. If
that sounds right, I could do that on back-branches but I'd rather let
HEAD on it current state with the event set correctly ordered.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-03 00:59:33 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-02 22:16:50 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-03 00:59:33 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-07-03 00:29:14 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |