Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)?
Date: 2021-10-01 06:53:36
Message-ID: YVawcJVd0M2wg8Hi@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 03:08:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On top of the tests for needed for custom GUCs, this needs tests for
> the new int64 reloption. I would suggest to add something in
> dummy_index_am, where we test all the reloption APIs.

My review here was three weeks ago, and there has been no replies from
the author, so I am marking this patch set as RwF.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-10-01 06:55:59 Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-10-01 06:50:26 Re: Autovacuum (analyze) on partitioned tables for ATTACH/DETACH/DROP commands