Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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