| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2017-04-07 18:00:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20170407180001.ln2iwknye7igtqnx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-07 13:55:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > Marked as ready for committer.
>
> Andres seems to have changed the status of this patch to "Needs
> review" and then, 30 seconds later, to "Waiting on author"
> there's no actual email on the thread explaining what his concerns
> were. I'm going to set this back to "Ready for Committer" and push it
> out to the next CommitFest. I think this would be a great feature,
> but I think it's not entirely clear that we have consensus on the
> design, so let's revisit it for next release.
I was kind of looking for the appropriate status of "not entirely clear
that we have consensus on the design" - which isn't really
ready-for-committer, but no waiting-on-author either...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2017-04-07 18:05:20 | Partitioned tables vs GRANT |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-07 17:55:51 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |