Re: pg_rewarm status
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_rewarm status |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1ykT58EOm7vuv_jc=8D+oK85GL_E7JOgndwSEHsg+BtbA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_rewarm status (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: pg_rewarm status
Re: pg_rewarm status |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jeff Amiel <becauseimjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:Well, the patch was rejected, more or less because people felt it
> Trying to follow the threads and other references - but I can't determine where this patch ended up.
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobRrRxCO+t6gcQrw_dJw+Uf9ZEdwf9beJnu+RB5TEBjEw@mail.gmail.com)
overlapped with pgfincore too much. I don't particularly agree,
because pgfincore can't load data into shared buffers and doesn't work
on Windows, but other people felt differently. There was talk of
polishing up pgfincore for possible inclusion in contrib, perhaps
adding this functionality along the way, but AFAIK there's been no
activity on that.
It wasn't rejected, it was returned with feedback with generally positive reviews. I think the main feedback was that it should provide a single-argument overloaded function that takes just the object name and applies reasonable defaults for the remaining arguments, for example 'main', 'buffer',NULL,NULL. I had thought that the worry about overlap with pgfincore was mostly resolved favorably, but perhaps I misread the situation.
I'd like to see it revived for 9.4 if you are willing.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: