On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:23:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > It seems to me that c251336 should have done all those things from the
> > start... In other terms, isn't that a bug and something that we
> > should fix and back-patch? I'll begin a new thread about that to
> > catch more attention, with Simon and Andrew in CC.
>
> For what it's worth, I have dropped a new thread on the matter here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190403063759.GF3298@paquier.xyz
>
> It seems to me that it is sensible to conclude on the other thread
> first before acting on what is proposed here. As we are only a couple
> of days away from the feature freeze, are there any objections to mark
> this patch as returned with feedback?
Well, that would be a bit sad. ISTM if we conclude that the current
behaviour is a bug we could commit the current patch and backpatch a
fix to honor a lower toast_tuple_threshold. But yes, time is tight.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
