Re: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost
Date: 2012-02-21 03:59:27
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFMNyMVh6iCVPxP85XmqxBHvHCvY28XSB5_aodjCM0_FA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +DATA = pg_stat_statements--1.1.sql pg_stat_statements--1.0--1.1.sql \
>> +       pg_stat_statements--unpackaged--1.0.sql
>>
>> Though I'm not familiar with CREATE EXTENSION. Why did you exclude 1.0.sql
>> from DATA? In hstore/Makefile, 1.0.sql is included. You think we should prevent
>> old version (i.e., 1.0) of pg_stat_statements from being used in 9.2?
>
> I'm not sure.  My feeling is that we probably don't want to ship all
> the old scripts forever.  People should install the latest version,
> and use the upgrade scripts to get there if they have an older one.
> So my gut feeling here is to change hstore to exclude that file rather
> than adding it here.  Any other opinions?

Agreed. But I wonder why VERSION option is usable in CREATE EXTENSION
if people always should use the latest version. Maybe I'm missing something..
Anyway, shipping v1.0 of pg_stat_statement seems less useful in 9.2, so
I agree to exclude it.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-21 04:01:33 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again
Previous Message Maxim Boguk 2012-02-21 03:25:41 Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again