|From:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Subject:||Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On 12 Sep 2017, at 23:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
>> On 09/12/2017 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So the conclusion at the end of the last commitfest was that this patch
>>> should be marked Returned With Feedback, and no new work appears to have
>>> been done on it since then. Why is it in this fest at all? There
>>> certainly doesn't seem to be any reason to review it again.
>> I'm not sure how to read the history of the CF entry. Could it
>> have rolled over to 2017-09 by default if its status was simply
>> never changed to Returned with Feedback as intended in the last
>> one? The history doesn't seem to show anything since 2017-03-19.
> Maybe, or whoever was closing out the last CF didn't notice Andres'
> recommendation to mark it RWF.
It doesn’t seem to have been moved to this CF but was actually created here in
the first place. Reading this thread it seems like there is clear concensus on
the status though so changing to RWF.
|Next Message||Daniel Gustafsson||2017-09-12 23:59:35||Re: Replication status in logical replication|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2017-09-12 23:54:15||Re: Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)|