Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

On 29/10/14 20:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> After reviewing all of those possibilities with the sort of laser-like
> focus the situation demands, I'm inclined to endorse Alvaro's proposal
> to rename the existing dsm_keep_mapping() function to
> dsm_pin_mapping() and the existing dsm_keep_segment() function to
> dsm_pin_segment().  Then, I will add the new function as
> dsm_unpin_mapping().  So:
>
> 1. Does anyone strongly object to that course of action?
>

Nah, it sounds reasonable.

> 2. Does anyone wish to argue for or against back-patching the name
> changes to 9.4?  My feeling is that we may as well, because either
> nobody's using this yet, in which case back-patching it won't break
> anything, or somebody is, in which case we'll cause less pain by
> breaking it before release than a year on.  But I don't care that much
> either way, so I'll defer if others disagree.
>

+1

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services