From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
Date: | 2011-02-26 05:09:31 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin90SzUJdPFTt=ptKLDhNJv-afxsQVmJoNZRueC@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 2011-02-24 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh, did we decide to do it that way? OK with me, but the submitted docs
>>> are woefully inadequate on the point. This behavior is going to have to
>>> be explained extremely clearly (and even so, I bet we'll get bug reports
>>> about it :-().
>
>> I'm ready to put more effort into the documentation if the patch is
>> going in, but I really don't want to waste my time just to hear that the
>> patch is not going to be in 9.1. Does this sound acceptable?
>
> I've found some things I don't like about it, but the only part that
> seems far short of being committable is the documentation.
Tom/Alvaro, have the two of you hammered out who is going to finish
this one off? I *believe* Alvaro told me on IM that he was leaving
this one for Tom.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-26 05:10:52 | Re: pl/python tracebacks |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-26 05:07:40 | Re: PostgreSQL FDW update |