| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: global / super barriers (for checksums) |
| Date: | 2019-12-12 19:54:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20191212195420.wjxczsxcszd5pubb@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-12-11 13:35:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> While I have passionate philosophical feelings about this topic, for
> purposes of the present thread the really important question (IMV,
> anyway) is whether there's any way of getting a patch for global
> barriers committed in advance of the first user of such barriers.
Right. I think there is.
> If not, then I guess we'll need to decide which of checksum
> enable/disable and ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY is going to go first and
> commit this only when that patch is ready to go as well. Or, I
> suppose, commit it with a dummy placeholder that then gets replaced by
> whichever patch goes first, but I'm not sure whether people would be
> OK with that.
I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the other
versions directly - but it seems harder to tackle the patches together.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2019-12-12 20:42:37 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-12-12 19:51:40 | Re: allowing broader use of simplehash |