From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-08-14 08:44:07 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEzsHVXXFnNfoj+f-s_hXKGRJdM5fW6QxS6p-b62KTSnLw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
>
+1 for waiting until v11 with it.
We have plenty enough other things that could end up needing a quick
post-release-release, and those are things that have received at least
somem testing...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Augustine, Jobin | 2017-08-14 09:01:51 | Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken |
Previous Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2017-08-14 07:46:03 | Re: Regressions failures with libxml2 on ArchLinux |