Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work

+1

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
> wrote:
> >> > Ripping it out and replacing it monolithically will not
> >> > change that; it will only make the detailed history harder to
> >> > reconstruct, and I *will* want to reconstruct it.
> >>
> >> What's something that might happen six months from now and lead you to
> inspect
> >> master or 9.5 multixact.c between 4f627f8 and its revert?
> >
> > "Hey, what has happened to multixact.c lately? I'm investigating a bug,
> > and I wonder if it already has been fixed?", "Uh, what was the problem
> > with that earlier large commit?", "Hey, what has changed between beta2
> > and the final release?"...
>
> Quite.
>
> I can't believe we're still having this silly discussion. Can we please
> move on?
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
Bert Desmet
0477/305361