| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding pin scan during btree vacuum |
| Date: | 2016-01-04 15:30:28 |
| Message-ID: | 12376.1451921428@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-01-03 15:40:01 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I'm happy with this being a simple patch now, not least because I would
>> like to backpatch this to 9.4 where catalog scans became MVCC.
>>
>> A backpatch is warranted because it is a severe performance issue with
>> replication and we can fix that before 9.5 hits the streets.
>>
>> I'll be doing some more testing and checking, so not in a rush.
> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to
> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased
> branch for a while, before being backpatched.
I'm definitely -1 on back-patching such a thing. Put it in HEAD for
awhile. If it survives six months or so then we could discuss it again.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-01-04 15:35:12 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-01-04 15:27:54 | Re: Some 9.5beta2 backend processes not terminating properly? |