> 10 марта 2016 г., в 14:38, Simon Riggs <[email protected]> написал(а): > > On 10 March 2016 at 09:22, Michael Paquier <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Vladimir Borodin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Let’s do immediately after you will send a new version of your patch? Or > > even better after testing your patch? Don’t get me wrong, but rejecting my > > patch without tangible work on your patch may lead to forgiving about the > > problem before 9.6 freeze. > > This makes sense. Let's not reject this patch yet if the alternative > approach is not committed. > > I attach 2 patches. > > avoid_pin_scan_always.v1.patch > Takes the approach that we generate the same WAL records as in 9.5, we just > choose not to do anything with that information. This is possible because we > don't care anymore whether it is toast or other relations. So it effectively > reverts parts of the earlier patch. > This could be easily back-patched more easily. > > toast_recheck.v1.patch > Adds recheck code for toast access. I'm not certain this is necessary, but > here it is. No problems found with it.
JFYI, I’m preparing the stand to reproduce the initial problem and I hope to finish testing this week. > > -- > Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > <avoid_pin_scan_always.v1.patch><toast_recheck.v1.patch> -- May the force be with you… https://simply.name
