| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Date: | 2018-03-02 20:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3061838d-2db6-eaef-6bc6-0091573afec8@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Ah, apologies - that's due to moving the patch from the last CF (it was
>> marked as RWF so I had to reopen it before moving it). I'll submit a new
>> version of the patch shortly, please mark it as WOA until then.
>
> So, the way it's supposed to work is you resubmit the patch first and
> then re-activate the CF entry. If you get to re-activate the CF entry
> without actually updating the patch, and then submit the patch
> afterwards, then the CF deadline becomes largely meaningless. I think
> a new patch should rejected as untimely.
Hmmm, I missed that implication last night. I'll mark this Returned
with Feedback.
Tomas, please move to the next CF once you have an updated patch.
Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-02 20:27:57 | Re: Testing "workers launched" in expected output? Really? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-02 20:13:26 | Re: 2018-03 Commitfest Summary (Andres #1) |