| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
| Date: | 2016-05-21 02:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | b547f27f-d40b-0250-93ff-d8d73194506f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/20/16 7:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess my first question is whether we have consensus on the release
> into which we should put this. Some people (Noah, among others)
> thought it should wait because we're after feature freeze, while
> others thought we should do it now. If we're going to try to get this
> into 9.6, I'll work on reviewing this sooner rather than later, but if
> we're not going to do that I'm going to postpone dealing with it until
> after we branch.
Sounds to me that this is part of the cleanup of a 9.6 feature and
should be in that release.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-21 03:45:21 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-20 23:47:53 | Re: what to revert |