Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken
Date
Msg-id 87082c5d-9595-f6e9-3975-9a40b4136ee6@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT udpates seems broken  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Ignoring BRIN for HOT updates (was: -udpates seems broken)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6/6/22 09:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:08:08AM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Attached is a patch reverting both commits (5753d4ee32 and fe60b67250).
>> This changes the IndexAmRoutine struct, so it's an ABI break. That's not
>> great post-beta :-( In principle we might also leave amhotblocking in
>> the struct but ignore it in the code (and treat it as false), but that
>> seems weird and it's going to be a pain when backpatching. Opinions?
> 
> I don't think that you need to worry about ABI breakages now in beta,
> because that's the period of time where we can still change things and
> shape the code in its best way for prime time.  It depends on the
> change, of course, but what you are doing, by removing the field,
> looks right to me here.

I've pushed the revert. Let's try again for PG16.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Replica Identity check of partition table on subscriber