| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Testing with concurrent sessions |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 22:05:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4B460641020000250002DF62@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner escribió:
>
>> Are we anywhere close to an agreement on what the multi-session
>> psql implementation would look like?
> See
>
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/8204.1207689056@sss.pgh.pa.us
> and followups.
Thanks, I had missed or forgotten this thread. It seems like it
drifted more-or-less to a consensus. Does everyone agree that this
thread represents the will of the community?
I see the thread started at the point where Greg Stark had a patch,
but by the end it was a "start over, stealing code as appropriate"
situation. Has anything happened with that? Any plans?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-01-07 22:07:11 | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-01-07 22:04:53 | Re: Serializable implementation |