On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 07:06:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> I would strongly suggest to Tim that he rip the portions of this patch
> >>> that are related to this feature out and submit them separately so
> >>> that we can commit the uncontroversial portions first.
> >> See my previous email. I suggested that Tim send three patches: one for this
> >> controversial stuff, one for the new utility functions for plperl, and one
> >> for the remainder. He and I have discussed it and I believe he is agreeable
> >> to that.
> > OK, well then just +1 for that.
> I believe we have agreement on this course of action, so I'm going to
> mark the current patch as Returned with Feedback. Hopefully Tim will
> submit separate patches for each of these three areas in the next day
> or two before start-of-CommitFest
That's my plan. Plus, hopefully at least one more for inter-sp calling.
> personally, I think they should
> each get their own thread and their own entry in the CommitFest app,
> for ease of tracking and reviewing. YMMV, of course.
Yes, that was also my intent.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-13 11:36:02|
|Subject: Incrementally Updated Backups and restartpoints|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-01-13 10:27:10|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O|