Hi Jakub, On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Jakub Wartak wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:23 AM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right, we could also put it as a limitation. I would be happy to leave > it as it must be a rare condition, but Tomas stated he's not. > > > Also maybe we should just focus till v21-0003 (and discard v21-0004 for 18). > > Do you mean discard pg_buffercache_numa (0002+0003) and instead go > with pg_shm_allocations_numa (0004) ?
No I meant the opposite: focus on 0001, 0002 and 0003 for 18. But if Tomas is confident enough to also focus in addition to 0004, that's fine too. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
