| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |
| Date: | 2016-02-17 04:12:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRA7OTFdA7V+sayGg8Q4DFefn8ajn5mwm6Vaaj+keeU8Nw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-02-17 3:19 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>:
> On 2/16/16 12:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> When a patch with status "Ready for committer" on CF N is moved to CF
>> (N+1), its status is automatically changed to "Needs Review". That's
>> something to be aware of when cleaning up the CF app entries.
>>
>
> I agree with Alvarro; this seems like a bug to me. If a patch is ready for
> committer in CF N, why would it suddenly not be ready in N+1?
>
+1,
This behave is pretty unpleasant and frustrating.
Regards
Pavel
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
> Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-17 04:22:40 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-17 04:12:46 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl |