Re: Avoiding pin scan during btree vacuum

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Avoiding pin scan during btree vacuum
Date: 2016-01-04 15:38:13
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZMn2F5ETHyY-1NMvrO0i50H_62xohn0UD1Y37OpLepeg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
>> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
>> branch for a while, before being backpatched.
>
> I'm definitely -1 on back-patching such a thing. Put it in HEAD for
> awhile. If it survives six months or so then we could discuss it again.

I agree with Tom.

--
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 Andres Freund 2016-01-04 15:38:52 Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-01-04 15:35:12 Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly?