| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding pin scan during btree vacuum |
| Date: | 2016-10-19 22:30:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20161019223047.dcgqqjiiymafyqod@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I agree with Tom.
Okay, several months have passed with this in the development branch and
now seems a good time to backpatch this all the way back to 9.4.
Any objections?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-10-19 22:45:48 | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2016-10-19 22:29:38 | Re: Indirect indexes |