Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I see the problem, but I don't buy the argument that it wastes large
> amounts of memory. Or do you have some evidence that it does?
Agreed, it seems unlikely that that hash table gets large enough for
this to be really significant. Still ...
> I think we should fix it, but not backpatch.
I don't think that's particularly good policy. It's a clear bug, why
would we not fix it? Leaving it as-is in the back branches can have
no good effect, and what it does do is create a merge hazard for other
back-patchable bug fixes in the same area.
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
