| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 2021-09 Commitfest |
| Date: | 2021-10-01 18:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | CEACF53D-F5C9-4EA0-A5B5-0062D9260AB4@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 1 Oct 2021, at 19:49, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 01:43:23PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Isn't the usual procedure to change their status, move them, and then
>> change it back again? ISTR something like that when I managed a CF.
Correct, if one looks at the activity log for an old entry the pattern of
moving to needs review, then to the next CF, then WoA is clearly visible.
> Really?!
Sadly yes.
> That sounds tedious!
Correct.
> I will do that but we should improve that process.
Correct again.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2021-10-01 19:07:49 | Re: parallelizing the archiver |
| Previous Message | Денис Смирнов | 2021-10-01 18:24:15 | Re: PoC Refactor AM analyse API |