| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 14:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3689.1576851820@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:
> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-12-20 14:33:02 | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-12-20 14:18:07 | Re: Hooks for session start and end, take two |