Hi,
On 2022-11-16 14:49:59 +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> I think the discussion went a little sideways, so let me recap what I'm
> suggesting:
>
>1. I mentioned that there is a missing callback when the filenode is
>unlinked and this is particularly evident when dropping a table.
>2. I
Hello all,
I think the discussion went a little sideways, so let me recap what I'm
suggesting:
1. I mentioned that there is a missing callback when the filenode is
unlinked and this is particularly evident when dropping a table.
2. It was correctly pointed out to me that an implementor n
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 09:53:01AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The CF entry for this patch doesn't currently apply and there has been a bunch
> of feedback on the approach. Mats, are you actually waiting for further
> feedback right now?
Okay, for now this has been marked as RwF.
--
Michael
si
Hi,
The CF entry for this patch doesn't currently apply and there has been a bunch
of feedback on the approach. Mats, are you actually waiting for further
feedback right now?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2021-04-05 21:57:12 +0200, Mats Kindahl wrote:
>2. In the storage layer, the function RelationDropStorage is called,
>which will record the table to be dropped in the pendingDeletes
>
> When committing (or aborting) the transaction, there are two calls that are
> interesting, in th
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:07 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 14:59, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> >> As a matter of fact, I think the patch I suggested is the right
> approach:
> >> let me elaborate on why.
> >> [...]
> >> It is straightforward to replace it by im
On 27/09/2021 14:59, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Hi hackers,
As a matter of fact, I think the patch I suggested is the right approach:
let me elaborate on why.
[...]
It is straightforward to replace it by implementing the Table AM methods
above, but we are missing a callback on dropping the tabl
Hi hackers,
> I'm going to mark it as "Ready for Committer" unless anyone objects.
I updated the status of the patch.
To clarify, Alexander and I replied almost at the same time. The
drawbacks noted by Alexander are fixed in the v2 version of the patch.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
On 05.04.2021 22:57, Mats Kindahl wrote:
Now, suppose that we want to replace the storage layer with a
different one. It is straightforward to replace it by implementing the
Table AM methods above, but we are missing a callback on dropping the
table. If we have that, we can record the table-to-
Hi hackers,
> As a matter of fact, I think the patch I suggested is the right approach:
> let me elaborate on why.
> [...]
> It is straightforward to replace it by implementing the Table AM methods
> above, but we are missing a callback on dropping the table. If we have that,
> we can record the t
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:16 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-03-03 22:15:18 +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:11 AM Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the answer and sorry about the late reply.
>
> Mine is even later ;)
>
:)
Seems I keep the tradition. :)
11 matches
Mail list logo
