| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: A separate table level option to control compression |
| Date: | 2019-04-07 01:18:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAA8=A7-Z3HKMLrCK5e74vCApxSMNmuzW8vJsbd0vMr626wmCCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 3:18 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:10:31AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Well, that would be a bit sad. ISTM if we conclude that the current
> > behaviour is a bug we could commit the current patch and backpatch a
> > fix to honor a lower toast_tuple_threshold. But yes, time is tight.
>
> 48 hours remain, which is very tight. Let's see but the chances are
> small :(
>
> If we think that lowering toast_tuple_threshold should be supported
> then the patch on the other thread should be used first, perhaps
> back-patched (it lacks pieces with ALTER TABLE as pointed out as
> well). If we don't use the other patch, then what's proposed on this
> thread is actually wrong and should be reworked. In any case,
> something is wrong.
Yeah, I'd hoped for some more opinions. I agree we've run out of time :-(
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-07 01:58:03 | Re: Fix memleaks and error handling in jsonb_plpython |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-04-07 00:03:58 | Re: jsonpath |