Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses
Date: 2018-07-02 11:54:25
Message-ID: 20180702115425.GG4841@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:31:17PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think you're asserting far too broad a policy for the CF, and in any case
> there has been no discussion of what exactly is a large patch. I don't see
> any great need to defer patch 3. It is substantial although not what I would
> class as large, but it also has relatively low impact, ISTM.

I am fine with any conclusion. As the patch has rotten a bit, I
switched it from "Ready for committer" to "Needs Review" by the way.
That seems more appropriate as the thing has rotten a bit.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Glukhov 2018-07-02 11:56:02 Re: jsonpath
Previous Message Pierre Ducroquet 2018-07-02 11:48:44 Re: effect of JIT tuple deform?