On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> This seems like a might subtle thing to backpatch. If we really want to >> >> go there, ISTM that the relevant code should stew in an unreleased >> >> branch for a while, before being backpatched. >> > >> > I'm definitely -1 on back-patching such a thing. Put it in HEAD for >> > awhile. If it survives six months or so then we could discuss it again. >> >> I agree with Tom. > > Okay, several months have passed with this in the development branch and > now seems a good time to backpatch this all the way back to 9.4. >
Are you talking about commit - 3e4b7d87988f0835f137f15f5c1a40598dd21f3d? If yes, do we want to retain this code in its current form under define UNUSED, is there any advantage of same. Another point is that won't this commit make information in xl_btree_vacuum redundant, so shouldn't we remove it usage during WAL writing as well? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
