| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Павел Ерёмин <shnoor111gmail(at)yandex(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64 bit transaction id |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 15:07:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20191104150723.ql45bjrfrt73ayve@development |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:39:44PM +0300, Павел Ерёмин wrote:
> And yet, if I try to implement a similar mechanism, if successful, will my
> revision be considered?
>
Why wouldn't it be considered? If you submit a patch that demonstrably
improves the behavior (in this case reduces per-tuple overhead without
causing significant issues elsewhere), we'd be crazy not to consider it.
The bar is pretty high, though, because this touches one of the core
pieces of the database.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-11-04 15:14:09 | Re: v12 and pg_restore -f- |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-11-04 15:05:09 | Re: v12 and pg_restore -f- |