| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Date: | 2012-02-23 14:15:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+tT=yR3KgWCksLPFpaaBjEPP5Ha_e_9nOgUpaLMr=Sgg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> Making pg_multixact persistent across clean shutdowns is no bridge to cross
> lightly, since it means committing to an on-disk format for an indefinite
> period. We should do it; the benefits of this patch justify it, and I haven't
> identified a way to avoid it without incurring worse problems.
I can't actually see anything in the patch that explains why this is
required. (That is something we should reject more patches on, since
it creates a higher maintenance burden).
Can someone explain? We might think of a way to avoid that.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-23 14:21:39 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Previous Message | Jeroen Vermeulen | 2012-02-23 13:08:28 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |