Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source
Date: 2014-03-11 03:35:26
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JQZpSBwK=ohe4HK5OPWAT8JRQZDSmtzR_rrUF4rEk3Xg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:39 PM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> From: "Amit Kapila" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
>>> If I understand correctly that objection was on changing Default Event
>>> Source name, and the patch now doesn't contain that change, it's
>>> just a bug fix for letting pg_ctl know the non-default event source
>>> set by user.
>>>
>>> Please clarify if I misunderstood something, else this should be changed
>>> to Ready For Committer.
>>
>>
>> Tom/Andres, please let me know if you have objection for this patch,
>> because
>> as per my understanding all the objectionable part of patch is removed
>> from final
>> patch and it's a defect fix to make pg_ctl aware of Event Source name set
>> in
>> postgresql.conf.
>>
>> If there is no objection, I will again change it to Ready For Committer.
>
>
> Hi, Amit-san, I really appreciate your cooperation.

Thanks.

> Yes, I removed the
> default value change that caused objection, so the patch can be marked ready
> for committer. I understand the patch was marked needs for review by
> misunderstanding Tom-san's opinion.
>
> I remember that I read "silence means no objection, or implicit agreement"
> somewhere in the community site or ML. So I think it would be no problem to
> set the status to ready for committer again.

Okay, Done.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-03-11 03:41:06 Re: Why is AccessShareLock held until end of transaction?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2014-03-11 03:26:19 Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime