| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little |
| Date: | 2016-03-15 00:17:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRmc3n_cROEbihR8UeNR6vpCxdF-Nhd3jcDp6rK18285Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There hasn't been a new version of this patch in 9 months, you're
> clearly not in a hurry to produce one, and nobody else seems to feel
> strongly that this is something that needs to be done at all. I think
> we could just let this go and be just fine, but instead of doing that
> and moving onto patches that people do feel strongly about, we're
> arguing about this. Bummer.
I'm busy working on fixing an OpenSSL bug affecting all released
versions right at the moment, but have a number of complex 9.6 patches
to review, most of which are in need of support. I'm very busy.
I said that I'd get to this patch soon. I might be kicking the can
down the road a little with this patch; if so, I'm sorry. I suggest we
leave it at that, until the CF is almost over or until I produce a
revision.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-03-15 00:21:31 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |
| Previous Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-03-15 00:12:37 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |