| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a bug? |
| Date: | 2014-03-18 02:27:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTm4qBemrHBHq=06+XAXn8PXaFk75wx_VADFoUt0=uFkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, it's fairly harmless, but it might not be a bad idea to tighten that
>> up.
> The attached patch tighten that up.
Hm... It might be interesting to include it in 9.4 IMO, somewhat
grouping with what has been done in a6542a4 for SET and ABORT.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2014-03-18 02:31:04 | Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?) |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2014-03-18 02:14:21 | Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?) |