Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken
| От | Tomas Vondra |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87082c5d-9595-f6e9-3975-9a40b4136ee6@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT updates (was: -udpates seems broken)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/6/22 09:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> Attached is a patch reverting both commits (5753d4ee32 and fe60b67250). >> This changes the IndexAmRoutine struct, so it's an ABI break. That's not >> great post-beta :-( In principle we might also leave amhotblocking in >> the struct but ignore it in the code (and treat it as false), but that >> seems weird and it's going to be a pain when backpatching. Opinions? > > I don't think that you need to worry about ABI breakages now in beta, > because that's the period of time where we can still change things and > shape the code in its best way for prime time. It depends on the > change, of course, but what you are doing, by removing the field, > looks right to me here. I've pushed the revert. Let's try again for PG16. regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: