|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: postgres_fdw: evaluate placeholdervars on remote server|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017/09/16 0:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version
>> of this patch during the commitfest?
> Frankly, I think things where there was a ping multiple weeks before
> the CommitFest started and no rebase before it started should be
> regarded as untimely submissions, and summarily marked Returned with
> Feedback. The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to get things that
> are ready before it starts committed before it ends. Some amount of
> back-and-forth during the CF is of course to be expected, but we don't
> even really have enough bandwidth to deal with the patches that are
> being timely updated, never mind the ones that aren't.
Agreed. I marked this as RWF. Thank you.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2017-09-27 03:32:52||Re: Multicolumn hash indexes|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2017-09-27 02:28:31||Use of RangeVar for partitioned tables in autovacuum|