| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |
| Date: | 2021-06-24 04:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2569713.1624508715@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think it's OK in HEAD. I agree we shouldn't do it like that
>> in the back branches.
> Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code
> consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD
> as it is and just change it for back-branches?
As I said, I'd keep the natural ordering in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-24 05:33:59 | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-06-24 04:19:47 | RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |