Re: tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on?

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on?
Date: 2017-04-21 02:24:12
Message-ID: 20170421022412.GA184144@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 02:09:54PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think we're not really sure yet what to do about this. Discussion is
> ongoing. I'll report back on Wednesday.

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update, and this is
overall the seventh time you have you allowed one of your open items to go out
of compliance. Kindly start complying with the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

At a bare minimum, send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date
for your subsequent status update.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2017-04-21 02:32:02 Re: walsender & parallelism
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-04-21 02:20:26 Re: walsender & parallelism