| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Elvis Pranskevichus <elprans(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v2] Add and report the new "session_read_only" GUC pseudo-variable. |
| Date: | 2018-11-11 23:30:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_aDP48VEVaZun4xccyAKTxBReDiLda9aaE2mFFMjW3Zng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:28 AM Elvis Pranskevichus <elprans(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 4:25:16 AM EDT Andres Freund wrote:
> > A CF entry for this patch has been created yesterday, without any
> > changes having happend since the above status update. Given that
> > there's been no progress for multiple commitfests, and this is the
> > last CF, this doesn't seem appropriate. Therefore marked as returned
> > with feedback.
>
> Sorry for the long silence on this. I'm attaching a rebased and
> cleaned-up patch with the earlier review issues addressed. I've checked
> all relevant tests and verified manually.
>
> Elvis
After taking a look at the updated patch, it appears to address the review
feedback which I provided. However, the patch didn't apply cleanly for me,
so
it likely needs a quick look along with a rebase.
After looking at the patch [1] to add a "prefer-read" option to
target-session-attrs which is also up for consideration this commitfest, I
was
wondering, assuming it is desirable to have both "prefer-read" and
"read-only"
modes, does it make sense for the "prefer-read" option to also be
implemented
with a ParameterStatus message instead of using polling?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | chjischj@163.com | 2018-11-12 01:46:08 | Re:Re: Connections hang indefinitely while taking a gin index's LWLock buffer_content lock |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-11-11 20:59:13 | Re: COPY FROM WHEN condition |