From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
Date: | 2019-05-06 14:58:36 |
Message-ID: | 20190506145836.cuy6vgsx54c2r5dr@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-05-05 18:55:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I am fine going with option (a), that's why I have prepared a revert
> > patch, but I have a slight fear that the other option might not turn
> > out to be better and even if it is then we can anyway replace it as
> > shown in the prototype, so going with option (b) doesn't sound to be
> > dumb.
I don't think we realistically can "anyway replace it as shown in the
prototype" - especially not if we discover we'd need to do so after (or
even close) to 12's release.
> I understand that we have to take a call here shortly, but as there is
> a weekend so I would like to wait for another day to see if anyone
> else wants to share his opinion.
I still think that's the right course. I've previously stated that, so
I'm probably not fulfilling the "anyone else" criterion though.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleksii Kliukin | 2019-05-06 15:02:09 | Re: Per-tablespace autovacuum settings |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-06 14:14:08 | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |