| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |
| Date: | 2023-01-27 14:53:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZCs_T6H5nxqm-VcbXOc7TuOO7aCXewFW4kiG2n8f8vdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:37 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > I don't see what your reference to checkpoint timeout is about here?
> >
> > Also, as I mentioned before, the problem isn't specific to checkpoint_timeout
> > = 1min. It just makes it cheaper to reproduce.
>
> That's flagrantly intellectually dishonest.
This kind of ad hominum attack has no place on this mailing list, or
anywhere in the PostgreSQL community.
If you think there's a problem with Andres's test case, or his
analysis of it, you can talk about those problems without accusing him
of intellectual dishonesty.
I don't see anything to indicate that he was being intentionally
dishonest, either. At most he was mistaken. More than likely, not even
that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-01-27 14:55:11 | Re: Timeline ID hexadecimal format |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-01-27 14:48:53 | Re: Set arbitrary GUC options during initdb |