On 3/3/17 4:54 PM, David Steele wrote:
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.
Not hearing any opinions pro or con, I'm 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
