On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>I think we would be foolish to rush that part into the tree. We
>>probably got here in the first place by rushing the last round of
>>fixes too much; let's try not to double down on that mistake.
>
> My problem with that approach is that I think the code has gotten significantly more complex in the least few weeks.
Ihave very little trust that the interactions between vacuum, the deferred truncations in the checkpointer, the state
managementin shared memory and recovery are correct. There's just too many non-local subtleties here.
>
> I don't know what the right thing to do here is.
That may be true, but we don't need to get to perfect to be better
than 9.4.2 and 9.4.3, where some people can't start the database.
I will grant you that, if the patch I committed today introduces some
regression that is even worse, life will suck.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
