| From: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce WAL volume for heap tuple hint bits |
| Date: | 2026-09-10 22:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAOVWO5qBGsN-0umY-JJZ7OoLYcXdBPJ4xv3puE6pQkFhqR1g4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andrey, Matthias,
> > Matthias, Surya, Ewan, do you think that is a useful and sound scope for
> > the patch? It seems very narrow, so we can just rejection the patch.
>
> I think the scope is very narrow indeed, and I'm not convinced we can
> commit to such a patch without losing some consistency/correctness
> guarantees that we do get with that specific settings combination.
>
Yes, I do agree with Matthias that we might lose the correctness
guarantees. So I am not very positive in this direction.
Regards,
Surya Poondla
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2026-09-10 23:28:51 | Re: Add PRODUCT() aggregate function |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2026-09-10 22:13:05 | Re: Should the WAIT FOR command tag be "WAIT" or "WAIT FOR"? |