| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Павел Ерёмин <shnoor111gmail(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 64 bit transaction id |
| Date: | 2019-11-04 18:04:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20191104180409.ygj3tkmx4ospcpi2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
(I've not read the rest of this thread yet)
On 2019-11-04 16:07:23 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:39:44PM +0300, Павел Ерёмин wrote:
> > And yet, if I try to implement a similar mechanism, if successful, will my
> > revision be considered?
> >
>
> Why wouldn't it be considered? If you submit a patch that demonstrably
> improves the behavior (in this case reduces per-tuple overhead without
> causing significant issues elsewhere), we'd be crazy not to consider it.
And "without causing significant issues elsewhere" unfortunately
includes continuing to allow pg_upgrade to work.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-04 18:06:08 | Re: Excessive disk usage in WindowAgg |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-11-04 18:01:44 | Re: [PATCH] contrib/seg: Fix PG_GETARG_SEG_P definition |