On 7 September 2016 at 14:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That may not be perceived as a "fix" by everybody, so we should not do
>> it without an explicit agreement by many.
>
> Agreed, but I vote with Fujii-san for back-patching.
No problem with backpatching, just wanted some +1s before I did it.
Will
Simon Riggs writes:
> On 7 September 2016 at 13:47, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
>>> VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
>>> not milliseconds as originally intended.
>> Don't we need to bac
On 7 September 2016 at 13:47, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
>>
>> lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
>> VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
>> not milliseconds as originally intended.
>
> Do
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Fix VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL
>
> lazy_truncate_heap() was waiting for
> VACUUM_TRUNCATE_LOCK_WAIT_INTERVAL, but in microseconds
> not milliseconds as originally intended.
Don't we need to back-patch this?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
