| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow streaming the changes after speculative aborts. |
| Date: | 2021-06-30 12:07:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZBtRcceXgxuL=WLy_Kb+MncjuNy9HL4BDFKJb-5eZKQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 4:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Thanks. Now, that the PG-15 branch is created, I think we should
> > > commit this to both 15 and 14 as this is a minor change. What do you
> > > think?
> >
> > Yeah, this is a minor improvement so can be pushed to both 15 and 14.
>
> Thanks, pushed!
I think if you're going to back-patch things that are arguably new
features into stable branches, you ought to give people more than 4
hours and 16 minutes to object. That's how much time passed between
the proposal to back-patch and the commit getting pushed.
I'm not objecting to the change as such - though someone else may wish
to - but I'm definitely objecting to the timing of the commit.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-30 12:08:14 | Re: cleaning up PostgresNode.pm |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-06-30 11:48:14 | Re: Use PG_STAT_GET_REPLICATION_SLOT_COLS in pg_stat_get_replication_slot() |