| From: | "Alberto Piai" <alberto(dot)piai(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Alberto Piai" <alberto(dot)piai(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a stored generated column without long-lived locks |
| Date: | 2026-08-28 16:07:17 |
| Message-ID: | DL0PFQ4CM3KO.38HQUI04TKPLT@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri Aug 28, 2026 at 3:36 PM CEST, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-08-28 at 07:50 +0200, Alberto Piai wrote:
>> Here's v9, rebased on top of current master.
>
> I can't find any fault with it; will mark it as "ready for committer".
Thanks again for all the effort you put into reviewing this, very much
appreciated!
Before this gets eventually picked up by a committer: I am having second
thoughts about my choice to allow = in addition to IS NOT DISTINCT FROM.
The patch can absolutely be reviewed with that in mind, I think.
Removing support for = would be an isolated change which wouldn't affect
the rest of the implementation.
As it stands, I'd probably prefer it committed without that, and expand
on the first commit at a later point.
Anyway I'll try to find time to think about a more convincing proof (or
a counterexample) over the next couple of days.
Best regards,
Alberto
--
Alberto Piai
Sensational AG
Zürich, Switzerland
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-08-28 16:04:28 | Re: Offline data checksum changes can cause incorrect checksum state on standbys |