| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: allow_in_place_tablespaces vs. pg_basebackup |
| Date: | 2023-04-14 20:11:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZ_9unmnxd0CUZ0ECCx3G7rfYXDrVvayrX6V_1TSWwmA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:40 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Looking at the patch, nothing really stands out..
It doesn't seem like anyone's unhappy about this patch. I don't think
it's necessary to back-patch it, given that in-place tablespaces are
intended for developer use, not real-world use, and also given that
the patch requires changing both a bit of server-side behavior and
some client-side behavior and it seems unfriendly to create behavior
skew of that sort in minor release. However, I would like to get it
committed to master.
Do people think it's OK to do that now, or should I wait until we've
branched? I personally think this is bug-fix-ish enough that now is
OK, but I'll certainly forebear if others disagree.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-04-14 20:36:30 | v16dev: invalid memory alloc request size 8488348128 |
| Previous Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2023-04-14 19:50:29 | Re: Direct I/O |