On 5 April 2016 at 01:18, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just > >> does it differently; > > > > No, it doesn't; as explained above. > I think these few changes are all we need. (attached) FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed > without any real discussions.. > Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context. The patches under review in the CF are too invasive and not worth the trouble for such a minor problem. After full review, I would simply reject those patches (already discussed on list). Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable. Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to allow you to backpatch a solution. We can, if you wish, revert this patch. If we do, we will have nothing, since I object to the other patch(es). My recommendation is that we apply the attached patch and leave it there. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
avoid_running_xacts_log.v1plus.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
