| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mikael Kjellström <mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql |
| Date: | 2024-06-25 21:10:14 |
| Message-ID: | F16D8CBA-F032-477D-B8A7-75ACDDC500F4@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 25 Jun 2024, at 22:57, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> Before pulling any triggers I think https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4959/
>> should be considered, since Tom found some flaws in the current code around how
>> timers and timeouts are used.
>
> That's certainly another issue to consider, but is it really a blocker
> for this one?
It's not a blocker, but when poking at the code it seems useful to consider the
open items around it.
>> However, since Andrew is actively aiming to replace all of this shortly, should
>> we wait a see where that lands to avoid having to backport another library
>> change?
>
> I would like to see what he comes up with ... but is it likely to
> be something we'd risk back-patching?
Maybe it'll be a stretch given that it's likely to introduce new dependencies.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi | 2024-06-25 22:12:44 | Zero -downtime FULL VACUUM/clustering/defragmentation with zero-downtime and now extra disk space |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-25 20:59:29 | Re: Should we document how column DEFAULT expressions work? |