| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashwin Agrawal <ashwinstar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: brininsert optimization opportunity |
| Date: | 2024-04-18 07:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | ZiDGzZ5zoHXJgMVZ@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:20:39PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think it's not an issue, or rather that we should not try to guess.
> Instead make it a simple rule: if aminsert is called, then
> aminsertcleanup must be called afterwards, period.
>
> I agree it would be nice to have a way to verify, but it doesn't seem
> 100% essential. After all, it's not very common to add new calls to
> aminsert.
This thread is listed as an open item. What's the follow-up plan?
The last email of this thread is dated as of the 29th of February,
which was 6 weeks ago.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-04-18 07:10:29 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-18 07:05:14 | Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots() |