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 limitation. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
