From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patches I'm thinking of pushing shortly |
Date: | 2017-08-13 21:43:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoac8UsJhp1LKbN+W5n_RRVum_g3GEU+QLLO1M1GxOjZdg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd vote for including this in v10. There doesn't seem to be any
>> downside to this: it's a no brainer to avoid our exploding hash table
>> case when we can see it coming.
>
> Anybody else want to vote that way? For myself it's getting a bit late
> in the beta process to be including inessential changes, but I'm willing
> to push it to v10 not just v11 if there's multiple people speaking for
> that.
I'd vote for waiting until v11. I think it's too late to be doing
things that might change good plans into bad ones or visca versa;
that's a recipe for having to put out 10.1 and 10.2 a little quicker
than I'd like.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-13 21:47:54 | Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-13 21:35:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken |