Subject: Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAB7nPqSGFKUAFqPe5t30jeEA+V9yFMM4yJGa3SnkgY1RHzn7Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160311.173259.190313590.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAB7nPqSVm-X1-w9i=U=DCyMxDxzfNT-41pqTSvh0DUmUgi8BQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160316.110158.196524017.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <56F17512.6060808@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqRLO7+nHfX9sd15jamRyW6kp+2x096ObT9yXV7N=ecdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRdcnQRLvBsBFKci8Y-a3bYmujpwSSr7if2BO+QXZkVcA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Masao Fujii <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 kleptog@svana.org, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Message-ID: <56F1FB40.4060605@pgmasters.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:11:12 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqRdcnQRLvBsBFKci8Y-a3bYmujpwSSr7if2BO+QXZkVcA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 3/22/16 8:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:38 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/15/16 10:01 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I understand that this is not an issue in a hurry. I'll go to
>>>> another patch that needs review.
>>>
>>> Since we're getting towards the end of the CF is it time to pick this up
>>> again?
>>
>> Perhaps not. This is a legit bug with an unfinished patch (see index
>> relation truncation) that is going to need a careful review. I don't
>> think that this should be impacted by the 4/8 feature freeze, so we
>> could still work on that after the embargo and we've had this bug for
>> months actually. FWIW, I am still planning to work on it once the CF
>> is done, in order to keep my manpower focused on actual patch reviews
>> as much as possible...
> 
> In short, we may want to bump that to next CF... I have already marked
> this ticket as something to work on soonish on my side, so it does not
> change much seen from here if it's part of the next CF. What we should
> just be sure is not to lose track of its existence.

I would prefer not to bump it to the next CF unless we decide this will
not get fixed for 9.6.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers