> 10 марта 2016 г., в 14:38, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> написал(а):
> On 10 March 2016 at 09:22, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Vladimir Borodin <r...@simply.name 
> <mailto:r...@simply.name>> wrote:
> > Let’s do immediately after you will send a new version of your patch? Or
> > even better after testing your patch? Don’t get me wrong, but rejecting my
> > patch without tangible work on your patch may lead to forgiving about the
> > problem before 9.6 freeze.
> This makes sense. Let's not reject this patch yet if the alternative
> approach is not committed.
> I attach 2 patches.
> avoid_pin_scan_always.v1.patch 
> Takes the approach that we generate the same WAL records as in 9.5, we just 
> choose not to do anything with that information. This is possible because we 
> don't care anymore whether it is toast or other relations. So it effectively 
> reverts parts of the earlier patch.
> This could be easily back-patched more easily.
> toast_recheck.v1.patch
> Adds recheck code for toast access. I'm not certain this is necessary, but 
> here it is. No problems found with it.

JFYI, I’m preparing the stand to reproduce the initial problem and I hope to 
finish testing this week.

> -- 
> Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ 
> <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
> <avoid_pin_scan_always.v1.patch><toast_recheck.v1.patch>

May the force be with you…

Reply via email to