Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 3 September 2015 at 18:23, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The previous patch lacks some files for regression test.
>>> Attached fixed v12 patch.
>>
>> This looks OK. You saw that I was proposing to solve this problem a
>> different way ("Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing"),
>> suggesting that we wait for a few CFs to see if a patch emerges for that -
>> then fall back to this patch if it doesn't? So I am moving this patch to
>> next CF.
>>
>> I apologise for the personal annoyance caused by this; I hope whatever
>> solution we find we can work together on it.
>>
>
> I had missed that thread actually, but have understood status of
> around freeze avoidance topic.
> It's no problem to me that we address Heikki's solution at first and
> next is other plan(maybe frozen map).
> But this frozen map patch is still under the reviewing and might have
> serious problem, that is still need to be reviewed.
> So I think we should continue to review this patch at least, while
> reviewing Heikki's solution, and then we can select solution for
> frozen map.
> Otherwise, if frozen map has serious problem or other big problem is
> occurred, the reviewing of patch will be not enough, and then it will
> leads bad result, I think.

I agree!

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company