Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly
Date: 2017-08-13 21:43:10
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoac8UsJhp1LKbN+W5n_RRVum_g3GEU+QLLO1M1GxOjZdg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
>> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
>> case when we can see it coming.
>
> Anybody else want to vote that way? For myself it's getting a bit late
> in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> that.

I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-08-13 21:47:54 Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-13 21:35:43 Re: [HACKERS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken