Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Lucas B <lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup
Date: 2018-03-02 19:38:51
Message-ID: 20180302193851.74er24c3e6zqkgkr@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-03-02 11:42:06 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > There seems to to be consensus in this thread that the approach Lucas
> > proposed isn't what we want, and that instead some shared lock based
> > approach is desirable. As that has been the case for ~1.5 months, I
> > propose we mark this as returned with feedback?
>
> Yes, that seems pretty clear-cut to me. It would be totally unfair if
> a patch that hasn't been updated since November were allowed to submit
> a new version after the start of the final CommitFest. We shouldn't
> be working on anything now that hasn't been under active development
> recently; we have enough things (and then some) that have.

Done.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-03-02 19:48:09 Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #1)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-03-02 19:38:25 Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files