On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Ok. It won't help all that much on 9.0, though.
>> Well, it won't help GIST much, but the actually-reported-from-the-field
>> case is in btree, and it does fix that.
>> It occurs to me that if we're sufficiently scared of this case, we could
>> probably hack the planner (in 9.0 only) to refuse to use GIST indexes
>> in hot-standby queries. That cure might be worse than the disease though.
> if anything, it should be documented. if you do this kind of thing
> people will stop installing bugfix releases.
Agreed. I think doing that in a back-branch release would be
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-11-13 18:45:16|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed
|Previous:||From: Gavin Flower||Date: 2012-11-13 18:23:38|
|Subject: Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot