Re: CF app feature request

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF app feature request
Date: 2018-11-02 01:54:54
Message-ID: ba5e9170-ec63-9ce0-6f48-32a3a38cd974@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/01/2018 08:40 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:56:24PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 05:50 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Are you thinking basically another status that's "Withdrawn", but
>>> keeping it, or actually removing the records completely?
>> I don't know enough about the app internals to comment. But it probably
>> shouldn't appear in the stats, or else should have its own category in the
>> stats.
> Or that's closer to "Rejected by the author himself"? "Withdrawn"
> sounds like a good term for that, we surely don't want to simply remove
> the thing entirely either. What's actually the issue with not tracking
> such things in the stats?

I don't have a strong opinion. It seemed to me that where something had
been created in error it would be best simply to be able to undo that.
But I can see arguments against.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2018-11-02 01:59:36 Re: row filtering for logical replication
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-02 01:51:52 Re: Getting ERROR: could not open file "base/13164/t3_16388" with partition table with ON COMMIT