On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 20:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > One of several relevant emails is at: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51a7473c.6070...@vmware.com > > It is definitely possible that I am mixing up two different things. > But if I am, I don't know what the other one is.
I believe you are mixing up two different things. The patch in the commitfest now doesn't cause that problem at all. The thread above is about one proposal in which Andres "basically suggested treating all visible as frozen". I threw out the idea that my proposal was not necessarily in conflict with that one, although others pointed out some problems with combining them. However, that only matters if Andres's proposal is going to actually make it in. Heikki also made a very interesting proposal related to freezing here: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51a7553e.5070...@vmware.com and that seems compatible with my proposal (which is one of the advantages you list). So, if you object because we're moving toward another incompatible proposal that is more desirable, then I understand that. It can be a bit frustrating to me though if my proposal is rejected because one of several proposals is in conflict. (Not that it's necessarily wrong to do so, but I'm sure you can see how that is frustrating.) I'll see if I can help out with Heikki's patch. If it starts to look like it's going to make it, will you drop this particular objection? Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
