Re: [HACKERS] Two pass CheckDeadlock in contentent case

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>, y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two pass CheckDeadlock in contentent case
Date: 2019-02-04 05:05:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:44:37PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Just for the records, patch still has no conflicts and
> pass all the tests. Yura, do you have any plans about this patch, could you
> respond to the feedback? In the meantime I'm moving it to the next CF.

No answers since the latest review, so I am marking the patch as
returned with feedback.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-04 05:10:53 Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-02-04 05:04:13 Re: Reduce amount of WAL generated by CREATE INDEX for gist, gin and sp-gist