Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I can't see the objection to replacing something inadvertently removed
> in 9.0, especially since it is a 1 line patch and is accompanied by
> copious technical evidence.
I am not sure which part of "this isn't a substitute for what happened
before 9.0" you fail to understand.
As for "copious technical evidence", I saw no evidence provided
whatsoever that this patch really did anything much to fix the
reported problem. Yeah, it would help during the initial scan
of the old rel, but not during the sort or reindex steps.
(And as for the thoroughness of the technical analysis, the patch
doesn't even catch the second CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in copy_heap_data;
which would at least provide some relief for the sort part of the
problem, though only in the last pass of sorting.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
