From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing |
Date: | 2023-04-29 08:17:35 |
Message-ID: | CAFBsxsGn8PWR9+QdjoHe7cCuLnk-1oepPXnW76srLQVr6ZZ0hA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:16 AM John Naylor
> <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > Now is a great time to revise this section, in my view. (I myself am
about ready to get back to testing and writing for the task of removing
that "obnoxious hint".)
>
> Although I didn't mention the issue with single user mode in my
> introductory email (the situation there is just appalling IMV), it
> seems like I might not be able to ignore that problem while I'm
> working on this patch. Declaring that as out of scope for this doc
> patch series (on pragmatic grounds) feels awkward. I have to work
> around something that is just wrong. For now, the doc patch just has
> an "XXX" item about it. (Hopefully I'll think of a more natural way of
> not fixing it.)
If it helps, I've gone ahead with some testing and polishing on that, and
it's close to ready, I think (CC'd you). I'd like that piece to be separate
and small enough to be backpatchable (at least in theory).
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kim Johan Andersson | 2023-04-29 15:07:19 | [PATCH] Add support function for containment operators |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2023-04-29 08:09:13 | Re: [PATCH] Clarify the behavior of the system when approaching XID wraparound |