Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Steele
Subject Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.
Date
Msg-id 4a461c7b-b90a-6644-64a6-80eac69c27bc@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/7/20 3:48 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 7 Apr 2020 12:15:00 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>>>> This doesn't seem a bug, so I'm thinking to merge this to next *major*
>>>> version release, i.e., v13.
>>> Not a bug, perhaps, but I think we do consider back-patching
>>> performance problems. The rise in S3 usage has just exposed how poorly
>>> this performed code in high-latency environments.
>>
>> I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not
>> sure
>> if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about
>> this?
>> OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the
>> patch
>> in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions
>> and
>> receiving many +1?
> 
> +1 for commit only v13 today, then back-patch if people wants and/or
> accepts.

Definitely +1 for a commit today to v13. I certainly was not trying to 
hold that up.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kashif Zeeshan
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Next
From: tushar
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables