Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani(at)google(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ilyasov Ian <ianilyasov(at)outlook(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Surya Poondla <s_poondla(at)apple(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates
Date: 2025-12-12 00:24:37
Message-ID: 20251212002437.2f.nmisch@google.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 04:19:02PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> Thanks for the review.

> The attached version doesn't need a comprehensive re-review, but I'd
> particularly value hearing about any places where you find it's reducing
> comprehensibility rather than enhancing.

I'd like to get this into the back branches well in advance of the 2026-02
releases, in case the buildfarm catches some defect at low probability. If
there are no objections in the next week, I'll proceed that way.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2025-12-12 00:28:20 Re: Proposal: Add a callback data parameter to GetNamedDSMSegment
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2025-12-12 00:13:47 Re: Periodic authorization expiration checks using GoAway message