Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks
От | Jeff Janes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMkU=1xdTpjfz5CVgVZ6rZde8eyhgjiqDK2+ENfKRVrwJKRstQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Andres Freund <span dir="ltr"><<ahref="mailto:andres@anarazel.de" target="_blank">andres@anarazel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On2015-06-07 13:44:08 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:<br /></span><span class="">> I'd like to advocate for back-patchingthis to 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2. It has<br /> > run without problems for a while now, and it can be considereda bug that<br /> > systems with a very large number of objects cannot be upgraded in a<br /> > reasonabletime.<br /><br /></span>In that case, how about working on a version for <= 9.2 (single one<br /> should suffice)?This will likely include a bunch of wrapper functions<br /> to avoid changing the API in the back branches.<br /><br/> Greetings,<br /><br /> Andres Freund<br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Unfortunately Idon't know what that means about the API. Does it mean that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have theirsignatures changed? But new functions can be added?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks,</div><divclass="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Jeff</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br/></div></div>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: