| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Robinson <robinson(at)netrinsics(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-15 07:06:12 |
| Message-ID: | 39488064.CCEC0EEE@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >The issue is that some people felt we shouldn't be performing such
> >checks, and some did.
> Well, more precisely, the issue was stalemated at "one person felt we
> should perform such checks" and "one person (who, incidentally, wrote
> the code) felt we shouldn't".
> I was just hoping to encourage more people to examine the problem, so
> that we might get a consensus one way or the other.
I hope that the issue is clearer once we have a trial implementation to
play with.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-15 07:11:52 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Adriaan Joubert | 2000-06-15 07:02:29 | Re: New alpha spinlock code passes regression test |