| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value |
| Date: | 2012-05-29 19:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 16784.1338318002@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2012-05-14 at 15:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (In any case, my primary beef at the moment is not with whether it's a
>> good idea to change age()'s behavior going forward, but rather with
>> having back-patched such a change.)
> Certainly we should leave it alone there.
With back-branch update releases due to be made this week, we need to
decide what if anything we're going to do about changing this.
I have no particular complaint with what Simon's done in HEAD, but
back-patching it was not wise IMO. I think we should just revert the
patches in the back branches and go back to the way it was before
(complete with failures on slave servers).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-29 19:28:58 | pgsql: Fix integer overflow bug in GiST buffering build calculations. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-29 03:58:09 | pgsql: Teach AbortOutOfAnyTransaction to clean up partially-started tra |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-29 19:13:40 | GiST buffering build, bug in levelStep calculation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-29 18:58:24 | Re: Foreground vacuum and buffer access strategy |