| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-09-29 03:49:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTVVUMKRq70XEyqSeRUi9nDEz2nUa5scTG97YF3vTJOQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't think you have the right to tell Kuntal that he has to move
>> the patch to the next CommitFest because there are unspecified things
>> about the current version you don't like. If you don't have time to
>> review further, that's your call, but he can leave the patch as Needs
>> Review and see if someone else has time.
>
> No complain from here if done this way. I don't mean any offense :)
Seeing nothing happening, I have moved the patch to next CF as there
is a new version, but no reviews for it.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-29 03:55:55 | Re: Sample configuration files |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-29 03:48:07 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |