| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com, craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Date: | 2018-07-03 01:50:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20180703015036.3ifklp6sc26xuuey@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Jul-02, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Andres suggested back in March (and again privately to me) that given how
> much this has changed from the original this CF item should be marked
> Returned With Feedback and the current patchset submitted as a new item.
>
> Does anyone object to that course of action?
If doing that makes the "CF count" reset back to one for the new
submission, then I object to that course of action. If we really
think this item does not belong into this commitfest, lets punt it to
the next one. However, it seems rather strange to do so this early in
the cycle. Is there really no small item that could be cherry-picked
from this series to be committed standalone?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-03 01:54:39 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-03 01:30:48 | Re: Old small commitfest items |