| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Date: | 2014-01-28 17:42:10 |
| Message-ID: | 25773.1390930930@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Honestly, I would prefer that we push a patch that has been thoroughly
> reviewed and in which we have more confidence, so that we can push
> without a GUC. This means mark in CF as needs-review, then some other
> developer reviews it and marks it as ready-for-committer.
FWIW, that was the point I was trying to make as well ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-28 17:42:46 | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-28 17:40:12 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |