Le 30/06/2010 06:53, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 30/06/2010 05:25, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> So this is not something we want fixed for 9.0, as indicated by Simon?
>>>> I don't see the patch on the commit-fest page yet.
>>> I tend to think we should fix it for 9.0, but could be talked out of
>>> it if someone has a compelling argument to make.
>> Er, maybe I lost count, but I thought you were the one objecting to
>> the patch.
> You're right. Robert questioned the use of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() in
> code available in the src/port directory. I don't see what issue could
> result with this. He also said that whatever would be commited should be
> I can still add it for the next commit fest, I just don't want this
> patch to get lost. Though I won't be able to do this before getting back
> from work.
Finally, I added it to the next commit fest. Robert can work on it
before if he wants to (or has the time).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2010-07-01 11:27:57|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for 9.1: WAL streaming from WAL buffers|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Golub||Date: 2010-07-01 05:59:29|
|Subject: Re: Keepalives win32|