| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Date: | 2013-10-16 04:03:25 |
| Message-ID: | 525E100D.4080805@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/30/2013 01:47 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> Yes, I understand you are trying to help, and I appreciate it! My
> opinion, and that of others as well from the original thread, is that
> this patch should either go in as is and break that one case, or not go
> in at all. I'm fine with either (although clearly I would prefer it
> went in otherwise I wouldn't have written the patch).
I see this is marked as rejected in the commitfest app, but I don't see
any note about who did it or why. I don't believe there is consensus
for rejection on this list. In fact I think the opposite is true.
May we have an explanation please from the person who rejected this
without comment?
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-10-16 04:26:39 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-10-16 03:17:46 | Re: buildfarm failures on smew and anole |