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. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
