| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
| Date: | 2022-07-05 19:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20220705190854.azgdkzystb2dvzel@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-06-23 18:51:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Waiting for beta3 would a better move at this stage. Is somebody confident
> > enough in the patches proposed?
>
> 0001 is the one that needs to most careful analysis, I think. 0002 I'd be fine
> with pushing after reviewing it again. For 0003 David's approach might be
> better or worse, it doesn't matter much I think. 0004 is ok I think, perhaps
> with the exception of quibbling over some naming decisions?
I don't quite feel comfortable with 0001, without review by others. So my
current plan is to drop it and use get_timeout_active() "manually". We can
improve this in HEAD to remove the redundancy.
I've pushed what was 0004, will push what was 0002 with the above change in a
short while unless somebody protests PDQ. Then will look at David's edition of
my 0003.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-05 19:14:20 | Re: PSA: Autoconf has risen from the dead |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-07-05 19:08:24 | Re: [PATCH] Fix pg_upgrade test from v10 |