On 2/1/17 1:25 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> 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.

While preventing bloat in the syscache is a worthwhile goal, it appears
there are a number of loose ends here and a new patch has not been provided.

It's a pretty major change so I recommend moving this patch to the
2017-07 CF.


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

Reply via email to