| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little |
| Date: | 2016-03-15 00:21:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20160315002146.ywlcl563h26dhrqw@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-14 17:17:02 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > There hasn't been a new version of this patch in 9 months, you're
> > clearly not in a hurry to produce one, and nobody else seems to feel
> > strongly that this is something that needs to be done at all. I think
> > we could just let this go and be just fine, but instead of doing that
> > and moving onto patches that people do feel strongly about, we're
> > arguing about this. Bummer.
>
> I'm busy working on fixing an OpenSSL bug affecting all released
> versions right at the moment, but have a number of complex 9.6 patches
> to review, most of which are in need of support. I'm very busy.
So? You're not the only one. I don't see why we shouldn't move this to
'returned with feedback' until there's a new version.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-15 00:23:24 | Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little |
| Previous Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-03-15 00:21:31 | Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check |