On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 07:06 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:52:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:14:42AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > >> I don't see anything has stalled.
>> > > I do. We're half way through this commitfest, so if no one's
>> > > actually ready to commit one of the patches, I kinda have to
>> > > bounce them both, at least to the next CF.
>> > [ raised eyebrow ] You seem to be in an awfully big hurry to bounce
>> > stuff. The CF end is still two weeks away.
>> If people are still wrangling over the design, I'd say two weeks is
>> a ludicrously short time, not a long one.
> Yes, there is design work still to do.
> What purpose would be served by "bouncing" these patches?
None whatsoever, IMHO. That having been said, I would like to see us
make some forward progress. I'm open to your ideas expressed
up-thread, but I'm not sure whether they'll be sufficient to resolve
the problem. Seems worth a try, though.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-09-30 18:09:38|
|Subject: Re: security hook on table creation|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-09-30 18:02:01|
|Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal"