| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Prabakaran, Vaishnavi" <VaishnaviP(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2017-04-03 23:26:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20170403232613.dcd4rzbhad2nkh2p@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-04 09:24:23 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> Hi,
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > On 2017-04-03 14:10:47 +1000, Vaishnavi Prabakaran wrote:
> > > > The CF has been extended until April 7 but time is still growing short.
> > > > Please respond with a new patch by 2017-04-04 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or
> > this
> > > > submission will be marked "Returned with Feedback".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Thanks for the information, attached the latest patch resolving one
> > > compilation warning. And, please discard the test patch as it will be
> > > re-implemented later separately.
> >
> > Hm. If the tests aren't ready yet, it seems we'll have to move this to
> > the next CF.
> >
> >
> Thanks for your review and I will address your review comments and send the
> newer version of patch shortly.
Cool.
> Just quickly, Is it not ok to consider only the code patch for this CF
> without test patch?
I'd say no, it's not acceptable. This is too much new code for it not
to be tested.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2017-04-03 23:35:07 | Re: Making clausesel.c Smarter |
| Previous Message | Vaishnavi Prabakaran | 2017-04-03 23:24:23 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |