Re: autoprewarm_dump_now

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Daria Shanina <vilensipkdm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autoprewarm_dump_now
Date: 2025-06-03 17:24:16
Message-ID: 862470.1748971456@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:
> I think the proposed patch should be committed and back-patched, after
> fixing it so that it's pgindent-clean and adding a comment. Does
> anyone have strong objection to that?

Not here. I do wonder if we can't find a more memory-efficient way,
but I concur that any such change would likely not be back-patch
material.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-06-03 17:27:29 Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3
Previous Message Mankirat Singh 2025-06-03 17:23:22 Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project