On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >>> In any case, at this point 9.5 is really aimed to be stabilized, so >>> targeting only master is a far saner approach IMO for this patch. >>> Pushing that in 9.5 a couple of months back may have given enough >>> reason to do so... But well life is life. >> >> No, this really isn't an optimization at all. > > I should add: I think that the chances of this patch destabilizing the > code are very slim, once it receives the proper review. Certainly, I > foresee no possible downside to not inserting the doomed IndexTuple, > since it's guaranteed to have its heap tuple super-deleted immediately > afterwards.
I am no committer, just a guy giving an opinion about this patch and I have to admit that I have not enough studied the speculative insertion code to have a clear technical point of view on the matter, but even if the chances of destabilizing the code are slim, it does not seem a wise idea to me to do that post-rc1 and before a GA as there are people testing the code as it is now. Now per the two points listed in the first sentence in this paragraph, perhaps this opinion is fine as moot :) I didn't get much involved in the development of this code after all. > That's the only real behavioral change proposed here. So, I would > prefer it if we got this in before the first stable release of 9.5. Yeah, I got this one. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
