On 5 April 2016 at 01:18, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just
> >> does it differently;
> >
> > No, it doesn't; as explained above.

I think these few changes are all we need. (attached)

FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed
> without any real discussions..

Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context.

The patches under review in the CF are too invasive and not worth the
trouble for such a minor problem. After full review, I would simply reject
those patches (already discussed on list).

Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that
does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to
allow you to backpatch a solution.

We can, if you wish, revert this patch. If we do, we will have nothing,
since I object to the other patch(es).

My recommendation is that we apply the attached patch and leave it there.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment: avoid_running_xacts_log.v1plus.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to