Re: The case against multixact GUCs

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The case against multixact GUCs
Date: 2014-04-16 18:30:34
Message-ID: 20140416183034.GT17874@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-04-16 11:25:49 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 11:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I'm serious. The multixact stuff has been broken since 9.3
> >> was released, and it's *still* broken. We can't give users any guidance
> >> or tools on how to set multixact stuff, and autovacuum doesn't handle it
> >> properly.
> >
> > Sorry, but I think you're blowing some GUCs *WAY* out of proportion.
>
> I'm not talking about the GUCs.

That was about:
"We can't give users any guidance or tools on how to set multixact
stuff, and autovacuum doesn't handle it properly."

> I'm talking about the data corruption bugs.

That was covered by "at this point ripping this out seems likely to
cause many more bugs than it would solve".

> Including the new one this week.

Lets hold our horses a bit, we don't know what's happening there for
now.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Воронин Дмитрий 2014-04-16 18:30:46 New functions for sslinfo extension
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2014-04-16 18:25:49 Re: The case against multixact GUCs