savepoint commit performance
This patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=605
Seems to have been after thoughts, and back burner stuff, and forgotten about...
Has it already been commit?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-07/msg00206.php
Oh, wait, nevermind, it was revoked and reworked:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01041.php
but that was posted Jul 19, 2011. And the Patch linked from commitfest is Jun 6, 2011. So is that an old patch? Or a new patch?
I'm confused.
-Andy
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote:
This patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=605
Seems to have been after thoughts, and back burner stuff, and forgotten
about...Has it already been commit?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-07/msg00206.php
Oh, wait, nevermind, it was revoked and reworked:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01041.php
but that was posted Jul 19, 2011. And the Patch linked from commitfest is
Jun 6, 2011. So is that an old patch? Or a new patch?I'm confused.
As far as I can see, Simon stated that he would revert it but never did so.
Perhaps we should go do that...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote:
This patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=605
Seems to have been after thoughts, and back burner stuff, and forgotten
about...Has it already been commit?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-07/msg00206.php
Oh, wait, nevermind, it was revoked and reworked:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01041.php
but that was posted Jul 19, 2011. �And the Patch linked from commitfest is
Jun 6, 2011. �So is that an old patch? �Or a new patch?I'm confused.
As far as I can see, Simon stated that he would revert it but never did so.
Perhaps we should go do that...
The patch is definitely still in the tree. Given the dangling-pointer
concerns raised by Heikki, I think we had better revert it before
shipping 9.1. Also, the entry in the September commitfest can be marked
"returned with feedback", since it clearly predates the discussion on
-hackers.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net> wrote:
This patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=605
Seems to have been after thoughts, and back burner stuff, and forgotten
about...Has it already been commit?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-07/msg00206.php
Oh, wait, nevermind, it was revoked and reworked:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-07/msg01041.php
but that was posted Jul 19, 2011. And the Patch linked from commitfest is
Jun 6, 2011. So is that an old patch? Or a new patch?I'm confused.
As far as I can see, Simon stated that he would revert it but never did so.
Perhaps we should go do that...
The patch is definitely still in the tree. Given the dangling-pointer
concerns raised by Heikki, I think we had better revert it before
shipping 9.1. Also, the entry in the September commitfest can be marked
"returned with feedback", since it clearly predates the discussion on
-hackers.
It's not a 9.1 patch, so that is not a concern.
I'm back now and will act as advertised.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
I'm back now and will act as advertised.
I've revoked the performance aspect. The difference between release
and commit has been maintained since it makes the code easier to
understand.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services