Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Fabrízio de Royes Mello' <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'legrand legrand' <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Pgsql Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two
Date: 2019-12-20 14:18:07
Message-ID: 20191220141807.GA28993@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Dec-20, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 02:45:26AM +0000, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> > I've got interested in this. What's the current status of this
> > patch? The CF entry shows it was committed.
> >
> > But I understood not, because the relevant code doesn't appear in
> > HEAD, and Git log shows that it was reverted. Am I correct?
> The patch has been committed once as of e788bd9, then reverted as of
> 9555cc8 because it had a couple of fundamental issues and many people
> were not happy with it.

Hmm, should we mark the commitfest entry as rejected then? Having it be
marked committed seems pretty confusing. The next version of the patch
would have its own CF entry, I presume.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-12-20 14:23:40 Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two
Previous Message Mark Lorenz 2019-12-20 14:08:18 Re: Created feature for to_date() conversion using patterns 'YYYY-WW', 'YYYY-WW-D', 'YYYY-MM-W' and 'YYYY-MM-W-D'