| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |
| Date: | 2013-08-06 02:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20130806024043.GA31572@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZbR+WL8E7MF_KRp6fY4FD2pMr11TPiuyjMFX_Vtg1Wrw@mail.gmail.com
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEBUvgcx8X+Z0Hh+VdwYcJ8KCuRuLt1jSsxeLxPcX=0_w@mail.gmail.com
>
> Our consensus seems to remove "not fast" promotion at all
> because there is no use case for that promotion.
>
> Attached patch removes "not fast" promotion. Barring any objections,
> I will commit this patch.
FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I have a
bit of trust issues regarding the new method, and I'd like to be able to
test potential issues against a stock postgres by doing a normal instead
of a fast promotion.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-08-06 02:48:09 | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty fails to test HEAP_XMAX_IS_LOCKED_ONLY for TransactionIdIsInProgress(...) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-08-06 02:20:31 | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |