| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: A separate table level option to control compression |
| Date: | 2019-04-05 06:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20190405065803.GB31003@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:23:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that c251336 should have done all those things from the
> start... In other terms, isn't that a bug and something that we
> should fix and back-patch? I'll begin a new thread about that to
> catch more attention, with Simon and Andrew in CC.
For what it's worth, I have dropped a new thread on the matter here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190403063759.GF3298@paquier.xyz
It seems to me that it is sensible to conclude on the other thread
first before acting on what is proposed here. As we are only a couple
of days away from the feature freeze, are there any objections to mark
this patch as returned with feedback?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-05 07:05:40 | Re: Timeout parameters |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-05 06:50:25 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |