| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool) |
| Date: | 2017-03-10 00:29:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=Q1_kJedShipfW2YKTcEgMtWcZ_b6QYSNjgGAYj98UAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> But I also think it's more important to get some initial verification
> functionality in, than resolving this conflict. I do, also quite
> strongly, think we'll be better served with having something like what
> you're proposing than nothing, and I don't have time/energy to turn your
> patch into what I'm envisioning, nor necessarily the buyin. Hence I'm
> planning to commit the current interface.
>
> Attached is your original patch, and a patch editorializing things. I do
> plan to merge those before pushing.
Your revisions all seem fine. No problems with any of it.
> Who would you like to see added to Reviewed-By?
I am generally in favor of more inclusive Reviewed-By lists. I suggest
that we expand it to:
"Reviewed-By: Andres Freund, Thomas Vondra, Thomas Munro, Anastasia
Lubennikova, Robert Haas, Amit Langote"
Thanks for your help with this!
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-03-10 00:29:41 | Re: on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-10 00:23:43 | Re: contrib modules and relkind check |