| 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 |
| Date: | 2018-04-09 00:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20180409003823.GA5158@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |