From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robins <robins(at)pobox(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Eliminating PD_ALL_VISIBLE, take 2 |
Date: | 2013-07-01 17:21:33 |
Message-ID: | 1372699293.19747.69.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I thought that Jeff withdrew this patch.
No -- was there a reason you thought that? I know it could use another
round of testing before commit, and there may be a couple other things
to clear up. But I don't want to invest a lot of time there right now,
because, as I understand it, you still object to the patch anyway.
I am still not entirely clear on the objections to this patch:
1. Contention was a concern, but I believe I have mitigated it. Strictly
speaking, additional pins may be acquired, but the cost of those pin
operations will be spread over a lot of other work.
2. There are quite a few different ideas about where we're going with
PD_ALL_VISIBLE and freezing, but it seems like removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
is potentially compatible with most of them.
Any others?
The patch reduces code complexity and reduces writes during a data load.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-07-01 17:41:16 | Re: Outputting UTC offset with to_char() |
Previous Message | 'Bruce Momjian' | 2013-07-01 17:15:11 | Re: Minor inheritance/check bug: Inconsistent behavior |