| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New VACUUM FULL |
| Date: | 2010-01-04 15:31:47 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071001040731w4bb768ceg258356342c14720d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This is a more cautious approach. Completely removing VFI in this
> release is a big risk that we need not take; we have little to gain from
> doing so and putting it back again will be harder. I am always keen to
> push forwards when a new feature is worthwhile, but cleaning up code is
> not an important thing this late in release cycle.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether we
should remove VFI this release cycle, but I thought the reason why
there was pressure to do that was because we will otherwise need to
make changes to Hot Standby to cope with VFI. Or in other words, I
thought that in order to wrap a release we would need to do one of (1)
remove VFI and (2) fix HS to cope with VFI, and maybe there was a
theory that the former was easier than the latter. But it's possible
I may have totally misunderstood the situation. What is your thought
on how to handle this?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-04 15:39:14 | Setting oom_adj on linux? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-01-04 15:28:43 | Re: Change to config.pl processing in the msvc build environment |