From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with dumping bloom extension |
Date: | 2016-06-08 01:58:39 |
Message-ID: | 20160608015839.GA803316@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:23:46PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 6/7/16 11:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>
> >> Moved to CLOSE_WAIT.
> >
> > Could you add an explanation on the wiki page about what this section means?
>
> Noah created that section. My interpretation is that it's supposed to
> be for things we think are fixed, but maybe there's a chance they
> aren't - like a performance problem that we've patched but not
> received confirmation from the original reporter that the patch fixes
> it for them. I'm inclined to think that most issues should just
> become "resolved" right away.
Yep, pretty much that. CLOSE_WAIT is for performance defects, race
conditions, and other defects where a successful fix is difficult to verify
beyond reasonable doubt. Other things can move directly to "resolved". I
don't mind if practice diverges from that intent, and I don't really process
the two sections differently.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-06-08 02:07:28 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14155: bloom index error with unlogged table |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-06-08 01:56:05 | Re: Parallel pg_dump's error reporting doesn't work worth squat |