From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2017-05-08 07:03:58 |
Message-ID: | 20170508070358.GC1089054@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 11:50:16AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:01:57AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 5/2/17 21:44, Noah Misch wrote:
> > >> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they
> > >> are dumped by default, just like we have --no-blobs, --no-owner,
> > >> --no-password, --no-privileges, --no-acl, --no-tablespaces, and
> > >> --no-security-labels. It seems like there is probably a fairly large
> > >> use case for excluding subscriptions even if you have sufficient
> > >> permissions to dump them.
> > >
> > > [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
> > >
> > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
> > > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > > v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> > > this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> > > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > > well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> > > toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
> >
> > I consider this item low priority and don't plan to work on it before
> > all the other open items under logical replication are addressed.
> >
> > (Here, working on it would include thinking further about whether it is
> > necessary at all or what alternatives might look like.)
>
> That's informative, but it's not a valid status update. This PostgreSQL 10
> open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a valid status
> update within 24 hours. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
2017-05-09 07:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-05-08 07:08:29 | Re: proposal psql \gdesc |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2017-05-08 07:00:20 | Re: Transition tables for triggers on foreign tables and views |