| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Date: | 2015-07-09 19:13:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xdTpjfz5CVgVZ6rZde8eyhgjiqDK2+ENfKRVrwJKRstQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-06-07 13:44:08 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > I'd like to advocate for back-patching this to 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2. It has
> > run without problems for a while now, and it can be considered a bug that
> > systems with a very large number of objects cannot be upgraded in a
> > reasonable time.
>
> In that case, how about working on a version for <= 9.2 (single one
> should suffice)? This will likely include a bunch of wrapper functions
> to avoid changing the API in the back branches.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
Unfortunately I don't know what that means about the API. Does it mean
that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have their
signatures changed? But new functions can be added?
Thanks,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-09 19:22:23 | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-07-09 18:42:34 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |