| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset |
| Date: | 2022-03-03 01:17:10 |
| Message-ID: | YiAXFiLYpUoQ3yB0@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 12:04:59PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> I had just recently noticed that while reviewing [0], but shrugged,
> as I didn't know what the history was.
Okay. I did not see you mention it on the thread, but the discussion
is long so it is easy to miss some of its details.
> Is this best handled as a separate patch, or folded into [0], which is
> going to be altering and renaming that function anyway?
No idea where this is leading, but I'd rather fix what is at hands now
rather than assuming that something may or may not happen. If, as you
say, this code gets removed, rebasing this conflict is just a matter
of removing the existing code again so that's trivial.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-03-03 01:24:03 | Re: Changing "Hot Standby" to "hot standby" |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-03-03 01:10:36 | Re: pg_stop_backup() v2 incorrectly marked as proretset |