| From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Audit of logout |
| Date: | 2014-07-02 21:15:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20140702211542.GC10574@toroid.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 2014-07-02 16:47:16 -0400, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com wrote:
>
> If we expect that the author is going to update the patch, the right
> state to use is "Waiting on author".
Quite so. That's how I understand it, and what I've been doing. But what
if we really *don't* expect the author to update the patch, but they do
it anyway? That's the only case I was referring to.
If the right thing to do is to open an entry in the next CF (as you said
earlier in your mail), that's all right with me.
-- Abhijit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-07-02 21:20:05 | Re: Audit of logout |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-07-02 21:14:38 | Re: Patch to send transaction commit/rollback stats to the stats collector unconditionally. |