From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ilya Anfimov <ilan(at)tzirechnoy(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |
Date: | 2022-07-13 15:48:23 |
Message-ID: | CALT9ZEFSAkFqf1fH9dWv5QmbTQc7VBf=f5mCPSbRMT7rCAgMkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Is there any reason to continue with two separate threads and CF entries ?
> The original reason was to have a smaller patch for considerate late in
> v15.
>
> But right now, it just seems to cause every update to imply two email
> messages
> rather than one.
>
> Since the patch is split into 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004+, both can continue
> in the
> main thread. The early patches can still be applied independently from
> each
> later patch (the same as with any other patch series).
>
I see the main goal of this split is to make discussion of this (easier)
thread separate to the discussion of a whole patchset which is expected to
be more thorough.
Also I see the chances of this thread to be committed into v16 to be much
higher than of a main patch, which will be for v17 then.
Thanks for the advice to add git thread instead of patch posting. Will try
to do this.
--
Best regards,
Pavel Borisov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-13 16:07:19 | Re: make update-po@master stops at pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-13 15:32:12 | Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change |