On 2015-08-10 07:03:02 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > I was previously a proponent of (2) as a practical way forwards, but my > proposal here today is that we don't do anything further on 2) yet, and > seek to make progress on 5) instead. > > If 5) fails to bring a workable solution by the Jan 2016 CF then we commit > 2) instead. > > If Heikki wishes to work on (5), that's good. Otherwise, I think its > something I can understand and deliver by 1 Jan, though likely for 1 Nov CF.
I highly doubt that we can get either variant into 9.6 if we only start to seriously review them by then. Heikki's lsn ranges patch essentially was a variant of 5) and it ended up being a rather complicated patch. I don't think using an explicit epoch is going to be that much simpler. So I think we need to decide now. My vote is that we should try to get freeze maps into 9.6 - that seems more realistic given that we have a patch right now. Yes, it might end up being superflous churn, but it's rather localized. I think around we've put off significant incremental improvements off with the promise of more radical stuff too often. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
