On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:25 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@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