| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta |
| Date: | 2026-01-30 19:13:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYZT9yaci3SyzezuAMhPY4Sn4zJy_L3-8jQQFpR=Gv2bw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 12:03 PM Jacob Champion <
jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> v6-0004 is a squash commit that splits the table instead.
> screenshot-2.png shows the effect of the split. I really don't like
> it, but I won't die on that hill.
>
>
Definite screenshot-2 preference for me. Though I do wonder just looking
at the image whether the reserved stuff even needs a table. The first row
is not even a parameter but a guideline, and the second pertains to testing
which seems like it can be incorporated separately. I'd either go for just
one table or two separate tables but not the combined variant in
screenshot-1. I'm not seeing an advantage to be gained by the integration.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | surya poondla | 2026-01-30 19:27:58 | Re: log_min_messages per backend type |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2026-01-30 19:03:04 | Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta |