| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Date: | 2018-03-02 20:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaWMn2SaMqjmYQxV2FBUtuJ3uce28W=zS5n4T058u_Tow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Ah, apologies - that's due to moving the patch from the last CF (it was
> marked as RWF so I had to reopen it before moving it). I'll submit a new
> version of the patch shortly, please mark it as WOA until then.
So, the way it's supposed to work is you resubmit the patch first and
then re-activate the CF entry. If you get to re-activate the CF entry
without actually updating the patch, and then submit the patch
afterwards, then the CF deadline becomes largely meaningless. I think
a new patch should rejected as untimely.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-02 20:13:13 | Re: Testing "workers launched" in expected output? Really? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-02 20:05:29 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |