Re: Do we still need parent column in pg_backend_memory_context?

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Do we still need parent column in pg_backend_memory_context?
Date: 2024-08-06 05:48:11
Message-ID: CAApHDvpCgTing_RPtaTs=wweAe7Kf43fQQ6bmRQHvmutKag-nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 13:27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > One thing we could do is remove it and see if anyone complains. If we
> > did that today, there's about a year-long window for people to
> > complain where we could still reverse the decision.
>
> Seems like a plausible compromise.

Does anyone object to making this happen? i.e. remove
pg_backend_memory_contexts.parent column and see if anyone complains?

If nobody comes up with any reasons against it, then I propose making
this happen.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-08-06 05:48:59 Instability with incremental backup tests (pg_combinebackup, 003_timeline.pl)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-08-06 05:43:00 Re: Remove support for old realpath() API