| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CF app feature request |
| Date: | 2018-11-20 18:19:21 |
| Message-ID: | 26198.1542737961@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> I'm trying to figure out where this thread left off :) My understanding of
> the consensus is we don't actually want/need a change in the app, but are
> instead OK with the admin just handling it a somewhat ugly way in the few
> cases where it's necessary?
The original case (just a mistakenly duplicated entry) seems OK to solve
with a quick DELETE on the underlying table.
> Or is the consensus to add a "Withdrawn" status, just to solve a slightly
> different problem from the one that started this thread?
I think there is a use-case for "Withdrawn", it's more polite than
"Rejected" ;-). But it's not a very high-priority request.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-20 18:30:38 | Re: CF app feature request |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-20 18:13:03 | Re: Connection slots reserved for replication |