| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Fabrízio de Royes Mello' <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'legrand legrand' <legrand_legrand(at)hotmail(dot)com>, 'Pgsql Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |
| Date: | 2019-12-20 14:33:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20191220143302.GA29537@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Dec-20, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2019-Dec-20, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> The patch has been committed once as of e788bd9, then reverted as of
> >> 9555cc8 because it had a couple of fundamental issues and many people
> >> were not happy with it.
>
> > Hmm, should we mark the commitfest entry as rejected then? Having it be
> > marked committed seems pretty confusing. The next version of the patch
> > would have its own CF entry, I presume.
>
> RWF seems appropriate. We haven't rejected the concept altogether,
> AFAICT.
Fair enough.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Suraj Kharage | 2019-12-20 15:10:57 | Re: backup manifests |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-20 14:23:40 | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |