| From: | "Asko Oja" <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Dimitri Fontaine" <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Martin Pihlak" <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Date: | 2008-08-18 20:49:06 |
| Message-ID: | ecd779860808181349j852f9cg231c966b6b58a68a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Does it change of result some queries?
Patch in itself is not changing what the queries return. It just gets rid of
error condition from which Postgres itself is not able to recover.
It is protection to server's hang?
For users of stored procedures it is protection from downtime. For Skype it
has been around 20% of databse related downtime this year.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> 2008/8/18 Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le lundi 18 août 2008, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
> >> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 09:40:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> This is not the kind of patch we put into stable branches.
> >>
> >> So what? That is not the only criterion for backpatching.
> >
> > I fail to understand why this problem is not qualified as a bug.
> >
>
> Does it change of result some queries? It is protection to server's hang?
>
> > Regards,
> > --
> > dim
> >
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-08-18 21:32:49 | Re: Extending varlena |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-08-18 20:41:58 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |