| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange perf regression with data checksums |
| Date: | 2025-06-04 14:21:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznUWysOeHEZ7YnQrZDbWzaF=+gnn+-vi5bvK3Dnxj-g6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 7:33 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
> So better to get this in now, otherwise we may have to wait until PG19,
> because of ABI (the patch adds a field into BTScanPosData, but maybe
> it'd be possible to add it into padding, not sure).
I agree. I can get this into shape for commit today.
Does anybody object to my proceeding with committing the patch on the
master branch/putting it in Postgres 18? (FWIW I could probably fit
the new field into some BTScanPosData alignment padding, but I don't
favor back patching.)
I consider my patch to be low risk. There's a kind of symmetry to how
things work with the patch in place, which IMV makes things simpler.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-04 14:26:59 | Add tab-completion for ALTER TABLE ADD NOT NULL |
| Previous Message | Oleg Tselebrovskiy | 2025-06-04 14:01:54 | Cluster.pm psql() undefined $$stderr |