| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Wait Events? |
| Date: | 2016-12-12 20:33:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZo2OY5q7sP_Q=rGVYqSpReEdf8_XEEy1308=-4=Z3CEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> There's too many "I"s in that para. I've not presented this as a
> defect, nor is there any reason to believe this post is aimed at you
> personally.
Well, actually, there is. You said in your original post that
something was "not correct" and something else was "not handled".
That sounds like a description of a defect to me. If that wasn't how
you meant it, fine.
> I'm letting Hackers know that I've come across two problems and I see
> more. I'm good with accepting reduced scope in return for performance,
> but we should be allowed to discuss what limitations that imposes
> without rancour.
I'm not mad. I thought you were.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-12 20:59:20 | Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-12 19:43:08 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots |