Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc
Date: 2016-02-16 00:57:15
Message-ID: 16878.1455584235@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:31:40PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, crap. I didn't realize that TEMP_CONFIG didn't affect the contrib
>> test suites. Is there any reason for that, or is it just kinda where
>> we ended up?

> To my knowledge, it's just the undesirable place we ended up.

Yeah. +1 for fixing that, if it's not unreasonably painful.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2016-02-16 01:03:52 Re: A bit of PG archeology uncovers an interesting Linux/Unix factoid
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-16 00:55:45 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl