| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 高增琦 <pgf00a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dropping a partitioned table takes too long |
| Date: | 2017-04-26 16:22:13 |
| Message-ID: | 6221.1493223733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.
> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely?
> If not, I'll commit it.
It's certainly not untimely to address such problems. What I'm wondering
is if we should commit both patches. Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open
is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed
by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2017-04-26 16:28:00 | Re: some review comments on logical rep code |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-26 16:21:39 | Re: Dropping a partitioned table takes too long |