From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
Cc: | psuderevsky(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI. |
Date: | 2020-04-07 11:21:58 |
Message-ID: | 4a461c7b-b90a-6644-64a6-80eac69c27bc@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 4/7/20 3:48 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 7 Apr 2020 12:15:00 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
>>>> This doesn't seem a bug, so I'm thinking to merge this to next *major*
>>>> version release, i.e., v13.
>>> Not a bug, perhaps, but I think we do consider back-patching
>>> performance problems. The rise in S3 usage has just exposed how poorly
>>> this performed code in high-latency environments.
>>
>> I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not
>> sure
>> if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about
>> this?
>> OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the
>> patch
>> in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions
>> and
>> receiving many +1?
>
> +1 for commit only v13 today, then back-patch if people wants and/or
> accepts.
Definitely +1 for a commit today to v13. I certainly was not trying to
hold that up.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2020-04-07 11:58:23 | Re: [bug] Wrong bool value parameter |
Previous Message | Grigory Smolkin | 2020-04-07 09:36:18 | Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tushar | 2020-04-07 11:25:01 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
Previous Message | Kashif Zeeshan | 2020-04-07 11:03:46 | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |