Hello, thank you for moving this to the next CF.

At Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:09:51 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> 
wrote in <CAB7nPqRFhUv+GX=eH1bo7xYHS79-gRj1ecu2QoQtHvX9RS=j...@mail.gmail.com>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > Six new syscaches in 665d1fa was conflicted and 3-way merge
> > worked correctly. The new syscaches don't seem to be targets of
> > this patch.
> To be honest, I am not completely sure what to think about this patch.
> Moved to next CF as there is a new version, and no new reviews to make
> the discussion perhaps move on.

I'm thinking the following is the status of this topic.

- The patch stll is not getting conflicted.

- This is not a hollistic measure for memory leak but surely
  saves some existing cases.

- Shared catcache is another discussion (and won't really
  proposed in a short time due to the issue on locking.)

- As I mentioned, a patch that caps the number of negative
  entries is avaiable (in first-created - first-delete manner)
  but it is having a loose end of how to determine the


Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

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

Reply via email to