Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Date: 2016-03-23 02:11:12
Message-ID: 56F1FB40.4060605@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/22/16 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:38 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On 3/15/16 10:01 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I understand that this is not an issue in a hurry. I'll go to
>>>> another patch that needs review.
>>>
>>> Since we're getting towards the end of the CF is it time to pick this up
>>> again?
>>
>> Perhaps not. This is a legit bug with an unfinished patch (see index
>> relation truncation) that is going to need a careful review. I don't
>> think that this should be impacted by the 4/8 feature freeze, so we
>> could still work on that after the embargo and we've had this bug for
>> months actually. FWIW, I am still planning to work on it once the CF
>> is done, in order to keep my manpower focused on actual patch reviews
>> as much as possible...
>
> In short, we may want to bump that to next CF... I have already marked
> this ticket as something to work on soonish on my side, so it does not
> change much seen from here if it's part of the next CF. What we should
> just be sure is not to lose track of its existence.

I would prefer not to bump it to the next CF unless we decide this will
not get fixed for 9.6.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-03-23 02:33:49 Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5)
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2016-03-23 02:01:25 Re: multivariate statistics v14