Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote: > I'm not sure what my next step should be.  I've added this patch to the open > commit fest -- is that all for now until the commit fest begins review? Yep, except that it might be nice if you could volunteer to review someone else's patch in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-04 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 04/10/2011, at 11:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote: >> - I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h. >> In this patch I have. > > Generally that is left to the committer, as the correct value depends > on the value

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Royce Ausburn wrote: > - I'm not sure if I'm supposed to update CATALOG_VERSION_NO in catalog.h.  In > this patch I have. Generally that is left to the committer, as the correct value depends on the value at the time of commit, not the time you submit the patch; a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Unremovable tuple monitoring (was: Addition of some trivial auto vacuum logging)

2011-10-03 Thread Royce Ausburn
On 28/09/2011, at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Excerpts from Royce Ausburn's message of mar sep 27 21:28:26 -0300 2011: >>> Tom's suggestion looks like it's less trivial that I can do just yet, but >>> I'll take a look and ask for help if I need it. > >> It's not that d