Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records
Date: 2016-03-10 09:22:52
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQCsZWsw5WVB2RsaHAQPDa6L5xHgiEC-BDsq68nZvGThw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name> wrote:
> Let’s do immediately after you will send a new version of your patch? Or
> even better after testing your patch? Don’t get me wrong, but rejecting my
> patch without tangible work on your patch may lead to forgiving about the
> problem before 9.6 freeze.

This makes sense. Let's not reject this patch yet if the alternative
approach is not committed.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-03-10 09:43:18 Re: Explain [Analyze] produces parallel scan for select Into table statements.
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-03-10 09:15:34 Re: Small patch for pgstat.c: fix comment + pgindent