On 3/1/18 6:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 03/02/2018 12:31 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On March 1, 2018 3:22:44 PM PST, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
On 03/01/2018 11:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2018-02-20 22:23:54 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
So I've decided to revive the old patch, rebase it to current
master,
and see if we can resolve the issues that killed it in 2016.
There seems to be some good discussion in the thread. But the patch
arrived just before the last commitfest and certainly isn't a trivial
cleanup patch. Therefore I think it should be moved to the next CF?
It isn't a massive invasive patch either, though, so I object to moving
it to 2018-09 right away.
Why do we have rules around not submitting large stuff to the last
cf, if we just not follow through? We're neck deep in patches that
are older. And you've already gotten a fair bit of feedback..
It was not my intention to break (or even bend) the CF rules, of course.
I haven't considered the patch to be "large stuff", while you do. I see
Peter Geoghegan agrees with your conclusion on another thread, so go
ahead and move it to 2018-09.
After reviewing the thread I also agree that this should be pushed to
2018-09, so I have done so.
I'm very excited by this patch, though. In general I agree with Peter
that a higher rate of false positives is acceptable to save memory. I
also don't see any reason why this can't be tuned with a parameter.
Start with a conservative default and allow the user to adjust as desired.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
