On 2017-10-02 07:43:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2017-10-02 07:39:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > On 2017-10-02 00:19:33 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote: > >> > I'd be ok with applying this now, or in 10.1 - but I do think we should > >> > fix this before 11. If nobody protests I'll push later today, so we can > >> > get some bf cycles for the very remote case that this causes problems. > >> > >> This point has been discussed during review and removed from the patch > >> (adding Stephen in the loop here): > >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOuzzgq8pHneMHy6JiNiG6Xm5V=cm+k2wcd2w-sctpjdg7x...@mail.gmail.com > > > > I find that reasoning unconvincing. log_checkpoints is enabled after > > all. And we're not talking about 10 log messages a second. There's > > plenty systems that analyze the logs that'd possibly be affected by > > this. > > No real objections from here, actually.
Vik, because there was some, even though mild, objections, I'd rather not push this right now. Stephen deserves a chance to reply. So this'll have to wait for 10.1, sorry :( - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers