On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I don't know about any of that, but something has to give. How much
>> more time has to pass before we admit defeat? At a certain point, that
>> is the responsible thing to
On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't know about any of that, but something has to give. How much
> more time has to pass before we admit defeat? At a certain point, that
> is the responsible thing to do.
Well, for this one it is not really complicated to avoid
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> 528 1146 Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in
>> same transaction
>
> This has been around for an astonishing amount of time... I don't
> recall all
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 528 1146 Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in
> same transaction
This has been around for an astonishing amount of time... I don't
recall all the details but rewriting most of the relation sync handling
arou
Andres talked about us concentrating on old items and very small
items. Here's a list of items that are both old and small (FSVO
"small"):
The first number is the CF item number, the second the patch line count:
528 1146 Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in
same transactio
