From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistent error handling in START_REPLICATION command |
Date: | 2016-03-11 18:15:11 |
Message-ID: | 56E30B2F.2000307@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/11/16 1:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>>> It looks like a decision needs to be made here whether to apply this patch,
>>> send it back to the author, or reject it so I'm marking it "Ready for
>>> Committer".
>>>
>>> Robert, since you were participating in this conversation can you have a
>>> look?
>
>> Who, me? *looks around*
>>
>> OK, I had a look. I don't think this is a bug.
>
> I agree, and Craig's complaint that this change reduces flexibility
> for plugins seems to tilt the balance against it. I see that Alex
> himself accepted that argument in his last message in the thread
> (<CACACo5Sm-tY-9YijuLbXmcLmSkYtcTaVQh_1j4tADfjC+1-bCw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>).
>
> So let's mark it rejected and move on.
+1 and done.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-03-11 18:24:19 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-11 18:11:43 | Re: Inconsistent error handling in START_REPLICATION command |