On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think of attached? I think we can back-patch > > > this patch. What do you think? Does anyone else have an opinion on > > > this patch especially if we see any problem in back-patching this? > > > > The attached looks great! > > > > I was working on HEAD for the patch, but this concern has been an > > issue for quite a long time. We were running into it on 9.6 in > > production, for example. And given how frequently it seems like there > > are large-scale production issues related to auto vacuum, I think any > > amount of back patching we can do to make that footgun less likely > > would be a good thing. > > > > Okay, I will commit this tomorrow unless someone has any comments or > objections. >
Pushed with minor changes. There was one extra space in a few lines and the tag for back-branches (from 10~9.4) was slightly different. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
