| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Infrastructure changes for recovery |
| Date: | 2008-09-08 18:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2792.1220897896@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 13:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, I dunno, it seems like that might be a bad choice. Are you sure
>> it's not cleaner to just use the regular checkpoint code?
> When I tried to write it, it just looked to my eyes like every single
> line had a caveat which looked ugly and multiplied the testing. You're
> the code dude, always happy to structure things as you suggest. If
> you're sure, that is.
No, was just wondering if the other way would be better. If you're
sure not, that's fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-09-08 18:40:39 | Re: [Review] pgbench duration option |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-09-08 18:07:05 | Re: [PATCHES] to_date() validation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2008-09-08 19:15:02 | Re: [PATCHES] TODO item: Implement Boyer-Moore searching (First time hacker) |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-09-08 18:07:05 | Re: [PATCHES] to_date() validation |