| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commit message / hash in commitfest page. |
| Date: | 2019-04-16 13:37:42 |
| Message-ID: | 24637.1555421862@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:55 AM Peter Eisentraut <
> peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2019-04-16 08:47, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Unless we want to go all the way and have said bot actualy close the CF
>>> entry. But the question is, do we?
>> I don't think so. There are too many special cases that would make this
>> unreliable, like one commit fest thread consisting of multiple patches.
> I definitely don't think we should close just because they show up.
Agreed.
> ... Which means we'd have the async/out-of-order issue.
I don't see that as much of a problem. The use-case for these links,
as I understand it, is for retrospective examination of CF data anyway.
The mere fact of closing the CF entry is enough for real-time status.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-04-16 14:26:08 | Re: New vacuum option to do only freezing |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2019-04-16 12:56:52 | Re: Compressed TOAST Slicing |