Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Seamus Abshere <seamus(at)abshere(dot)net>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers
Date: 2021-09-04 06:14:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 4 Sep 2021, at 01:17, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 3:10 Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at <mailto:laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 18:24 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:

> > This thread has stalled and the patch no longer applies. I propose that we
> > mark this Returned with Feedback, is that Ok with you Amit?
> +1. That requires more thought.
> Yes, I think so too.

Done that way, it can always be resubmitted in a later CF.

Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2021-09-04 06:19:49 Re: Postgres perl module namespace
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-09-04 05:00:17 Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication