On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I have very little trust that the interactions between vacuum, the deferred truncations in the checkpointer, the state management in 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
