| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |
| Date: | 2024-11-27 20:50:46 |
| Message-ID: | 43l2qsujgf4qgvrsbzmjd6abqtpvyyjygkvi673qos3jdv5qfm@3iecded2wvqu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-11-27 15:41:14 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 7:42 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 04:24:58PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > Tweaks of the tests across multiple stable branches happen all the
> > > time, and adding one specific to 17~ is no big issue. I'm in the
> > > middle of it but I'm lacking the steam to do so today. Will likely
> > > finish tomorrow.
> >
> > I've edited the whole, added this extra test based on \syncpipeline in
> > 17~, kept the remaining tests in 14~ where pgbench is able to handle
> > them, and backpatched that down to 13. Let's see now what we can do
> > with the psql bits.
>
> I'm very surprised that this was back-patched. I think we should
> revert it from the back-branches before it gets into a minor release.
> It seems like a clear definitional change, which has no business in a
> minor release.
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2024-11-27 20:48:14 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |