Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Date: 2019-05-06 14:58:36
Message-ID: 20190506145836.cuy6vgsx54c2r5dr@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-05 18:55:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I am fine going with option (a), that's why I have prepared a revert
> > patch, but I have a slight fear that the other option might not turn
> > out to be better and even if it is then we can anyway replace it as
> > shown in the prototype, so going with option (b) doesn't sound to be
> > dumb.

I don't think we realistically can "anyway replace it as shown in the
prototype" - especially not if we discover we'd need to do so after (or
even close) to 12's release.

> I understand that we have to take a call here shortly, but as there is
> a weekend so I would like to wait for another day to see if anyone
> else wants to share his opinion.

I still think that's the right course. I've previously stated that, so
I'm probably not fulfilling the "anyone else" criterion though.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleksii Kliukin 2019-05-06 15:02:09 Re: Per-tablespace autovacuum settings
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-06 14:14:08 Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take