At Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:23:14 -0800, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote in <3b7b7f90-db46-8c37-c4f7-443330c3a...@pgmasters.net> > 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.
Ah. Yes, I agree on this. Thanks. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
