| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility |
| Date: | 2018-03-18 02:09:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4597.1521338981@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> Thanks for the review. I notice that cfbot has now flagged the patch as
> failing, and when I look into it, it appears that cfbot is building with
> your test patch, and without the xlog.c patch, and so the test naturally
> fails. Does the cfbot require both patches to be attached to the same
> email, in order to include them both?
I believe so --- AFAIK it does not know anything about dependencies
between different patches, and will just try to build whatever patch(es)
appear in the latest email on a given thread. Munro might be able to
provide more detail.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-18 02:24:36 | Re: [GSoC 2018] Proposal Draft |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-18 02:04:44 | Re: Precision loss casting float to numeric |