|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:04:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> At the end, it seems to me that what I am proposing is themost readable
> approach, and with proper documentation things should be handled
> finely... Or there is an approach you have in mind I do not foresee?
With feature freeze which has been reached, I am marking this patch as
returned with feedback. Please note that I have no plans to resubmit
again this patch set after this second attempt as I have no idea where
we want things to go.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-04-09 00:47:06||Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend|
|Previous Message||Christophe Pettus||2018-04-08 23:27:57||Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS|