| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 01:59:04 |
| Message-ID: | 332D8050-2479-4D0F-95A9-765B89268E83@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Umm, nobody has attributed ridiculousness to anyone. Please don't put words in my mouth. But I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. Nobody gets to come along and get the features they want without some sort of consensus, not me, not you, not Joachim, not Tom.
I'm not disputing that we COULD reject the patch. I AM disputing that we've made a cogent argument for doing so.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-03 02:09:59 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-12-03 01:55:21 | Re: Hi- How frequently Postgres Poll for trigger file |