Re: Partitioning option for COPY

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>
Cc: Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioning option for COPY
Date: 2009-11-23 16:02:14
Message-ID: 1258992134.27757.5969.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:43 -0500, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I was unaware you were developing these ideas and so was unable to
> > provide comments until now.

> The first patch was published to this list on September 10 (almost 2.5
> months ago) along with the wiki page describing the problem and the
> solution.

> What should I have done to raise awareness further?

...Read my detailed comments in response to Kedar's patch and post
comments on that thread to say you didn't agree with that proposal and
that you were thinking of another way entirely. ~14 July. >4 months ago.

...Contact me personally when you saw that I hadn't responded to your
later posts, knowing that I have recent track record as a reviewer of
partitioning patches.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-11-23 16:27:48 Re: point_ops for GiST
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-23 16:00:09 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove -w (--ignore-all-space) option from pg_regress's diff