| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
| Date: | 2016-04-18 14:03:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa+DKZSWD5G37kGhVSZMhAtGFxR+Vop+qD=M5afd=FV2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the
> considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted
> 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with
> for the next five years. Moreover, I do not believe that it will do a
> damn thing for ensuring that future calls of BufferGetPage think about
> what to do; they'll most likely be copied-and-pasted from nearby calls,
> just as people have always done. With luck, the nearby calls will have
> the right semantics, but this change won't help very much at all if they
> don't.
I hit this problem over the weekend, too, when I tried to rebase a
patch a colleague of mine is working on. So I tend to agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-18 14:03:29 | Re: Default Roles |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-04-18 14:03:13 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |