| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inaccuracy in VACUUM's tuple count estimates |
| Date: | 2014-06-09 14:30:43 |
| Message-ID: | 28224.1402324243@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-09 10:14:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think that would be a good idea for conceptual clarity if nothing
>> else. If callers are OK with it, then they can treat both of those
>> codes alike; but then at least there's clear evidence as to the
>> author's intent.
> I am happy to introduce the code for that. But it'd have to be >=9.4 or
> 9.4?
We need a solution that can be back-patched, unless you're prepared to
revert what you already did to HTSV in the back branches.
Having said that, it's not clear to me that we couldn't change HTSV's
API in the back branches. What third-party code would be likely to
be depending on it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2014-06-09 14:39:13 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-09 14:26:30 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |