| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Date: | 2016-09-28 14:03:05 |
| Message-ID: | 12532.1475071385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is
>> perceived to be voting for what.
> Thanks Stephen Frost for listing down all the concerns from the people
> on the different approaches.
I'm not sure if we've arrived at a consensus or not, but here's my
current thinking: it's very early in the v10 cycle, so we have time
to experiment. I propose to push my current patch (ie, move PL function
source code to \df+ footers), and we can use it in HEAD for awhile
and see what we think. We can alway improve or revert it later.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-09-28 14:06:59 | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-09-28 13:34:47 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |