Re: The case against multixact GUCs

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The case against multixact GUCs
Date: 2014-04-16 18:25:49
Message-ID: 534ECB2D.8000304@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/16/2014 11:22 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I'm serious. The multixact stuff has been broken since 9.3
>> was released, and it's *still* broken. We can't give users any guidance
>> or tools on how to set multixact stuff, and autovacuum doesn't handle it
>> properly.
>
> Sorry, but I think you're blowing some GUCs *WAY* out of proportion.

I'm not talking about the GUCs. I'm talking about the data corruption
bugs. Including the new one this week.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-04-16 18:30:34 Re: The case against multixact GUCs
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-04-16 18:22:21 Re: The case against multixact GUCs