| 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 | Resend email |
| 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
| 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? |