MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BD5C3345-42F2-4870-89B2-FD8875301714@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAAKRu_a-aVGxNEdkJt+96HGryQXuQNuXe+PhR0KcnUhXSOPBJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87DD95AA-274F-4F4F-BAD9-7738E5B1F905@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAAKRu_ZH8kL0Zm0j7m7DC9fzk7ru7yf9rm2pEQRvx1iXX25aPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bGCgUuhmy1Mzkw3yCmbGcjNQAjV=OmjuW6hz90PuXKWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPhAU56g1gGVT0+wG8RrSWE6qW8TOfNJS1HNAWX6wPgbFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_YD0ecXeAh+DmJpzQOJwcRzmMyGdcc5W_0pEF78rYSJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPhu7WZd+EfQDha1nz=DC93OtY1=UFEdWwSZsASka_2eRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_a2zU7672weJCGzAE2K44cCwnvsb-BwPh8ET3n1bsKfPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_Yc1VKM+iuKuJzncPXCYNqQz_jUFBYXuDiPC5k9sUiiQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <tvvtfoxz5ykpsctxjbzxg3nldnzfc7geplrt2z2s54pmgto27y@hbijsndifu45>
 <CAAKRu_Yz9x0sejBa5ov_LJ5sMOSKM3AeKOFUg+fQpNqyMmxwRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYPbvC+n=1sapSkGD3G+XzhShGJBOa-YaDFp=g0TD29sw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYPbvC+n=1sapSkGD3G+XzhShGJBOa-YaDFp=g0TD29sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 14:32:29 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAAKRu_bmGijCBEe02=d2d8Be6WwYx_XBZPXnwKD8kd4TA8+HOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM
 on-access)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>,
	Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_bmGijCBEe02%3Dd2d8Be6WwYx_XBZPXnwKD8kd4TA8%2BHOA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 12:41=E2=80=AFPM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:20=E2=80=AFPM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yikes, you are right about the "reason" member. Attached 0002 removes
> > it, and I'll go ahead and fix it in the back branches too.
>
> I think changing this in the back-branches is a super-bad idea. If you
> want, you can add a comment in the back-branches saying "oops, we
> shipped a field that isn't used for anything", but changing the struct
> definition is very likely to make 0 people happy and >0 people
> unhappy. On the other hand, changing this in master is a good idea and
> you should go ahead and do that before this creates any more
> confusion.

Yes, that makes 100% sense. It should have occurred to me. I've pushed
the commit to master. I didn't put an updated set of patches here in
case someone was already reviewing them, as nothing else has changed.

- Melanie