| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Date: | 2015-12-10 08:58:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTk6cMUbmojCk-OhTnKzkZqwmnAjsO0zi-f=EfKPcMqCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bert | 2015-12-10 09:01:41 | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
| Previous Message | Victor Wagner | 2015-12-10 08:45:27 | Is postgresql on Windows compatible with flex 2.6.0? |