On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll be frank, too. Heikki doesn't need to persuade you to go his > way, because everyone other than yourself who has looked at this > problem has come up with a design that looks like his.
Andres suggested something that is very roughly comparable, perhaps. And that was it, really, except for your suggestion that I convinced you wasn't the best way forward (for unrelated reasons). > As far as finding an option that's better than clearing the xmin, the > point is not that we'd commit that design. Well, we might, if > somebody does a careful audit of all the relevant code paths and makes > a convincing argument that it's safe. But more likely, somebody will > go find some other bit space that can be used to do this. The fact > that it's not immediately obvious to you (or Heikki) where to find > that bit-space is not a principled argument for changing the whole > design. I never said that it was. *Obviously* I know that Heikki is not obligated to convince me of anything - I said as much. Whether or not Heikki is obligated to convince me is not the point, which is that it would be nice if he could convince me. I think that there are some serious issues with the promise tuples approach, and discussing those brings us closer to moving forward. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
