| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Lucas B <lucas75(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Early locking option to parallel backup |
| Date: | 2018-03-02 16:42:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoagM6eft2C1ug8skSQ-MiFFm_Y9LvuJ7nuUt8F0TqaBNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> There seems to to be consensus in this thread that the approach Lucas
> proposed isn't what we want, and that instead some shared lock based
> approach is desirable. As that has been the case for ~1.5 months, I
> propose we mark this as returned with feedback?
Yes, that seems pretty clear-cut to me. It would be totally unfair if
a patch that hasn't been updated since November were allowed to submit
a new version after the start of the final CommitFest. We shouldn't
be working on anything now that hasn't been under active development
recently; we have enough things (and then some) that have.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2018-03-02 16:43:20 | Re: psql tab completion for ALTER INDEX SET |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-02 16:36:50 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |