From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ilya Anfimov <ilan(at)tzirechnoy(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
Date: | 2022-03-14 10:32:04 |
Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TNOmnpUKVDG_tADQ9KKcA2dq17DGPj_ztOEmr3DCyVp1Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi hackers,
> > Here is a new version of the patchset. SLRU refactoring was moved to a
> > separate patch. Both v14-0003 (XID_FMT macro) and v14-0004 (SLRU
> > refactoring) can be delivered in PG15.
>
> Here is a new version of the patchset. The changes compared to v14 are
> minimal. Most importantly, the GCC warning reported by cfbot was
> (hopefully) fixed. The patch order was also altered, v15-0001 and
> v15-0002 are targeting PG15 now, the rest are targeting PG16.
>
> Also for the record, I tested the patchset on Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+
> in the hope that it will discover some new flaws. To my
> disappointment, it didn't.
Here is the rebased version of the patchset. Also, I updated the
commit messages for v16-0001 and v16-002 to make them look more like
the rest of the PostgreSQL commit messages. They include the link to
this discussion now as well.
IMO v16-0001 and v16-0002 are in pretty good shape and are as much as
we are going to deliver in PG15. I'm going to change the status of the
CF entry to "Ready for Committer" somewhere this week unless someone
believes v16-0001 and/or v16-0002 shouldn't be merged.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-03-14 10:33:15 | Re: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15 |
Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2022-03-14 10:26:16 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |