Hi,
On 2023-06-09 12:23:36 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:03 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > My new plan is to commit this tomorrow, since the clear consensus is
> > > that we should go ahead with this for 16.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is that concensus (for me half the changes shouldn't be
> > done, the rest should be in 17), but in the end it doesn't matter that much.
>
> Really? What parts are you opposed to in principle? I don't see why
> you wouldn't support everything or nothing for 17 (questions of style
> aside). I don't see what's ambiguous about what we should do here,
> barring the 16-or-17 question.
I don't think minimizing heaprel being passed around is a worthwhile goal, the
contrary actually: It just makes it painful to use heaprel anywhere, because
it causes precisely these cascading changes of adding/removing the parameter
to a bunch of functions. If anything we should do the opposite.
> It's not like nbtree ever really "used P_NEW". It doesn't actually
> depend on any of the P_NEW handling inside bufmgr.c. It looks a little
> like it might, but that's just an accident.
That part I am entirely on board with, as mentioned earlier. It doesn't seem
like 16 material though.
Greetings,
Andres Freund