On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:58 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@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.gf3...@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
