| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commit message / hash in commitfest page. |
| Date: | 2019-04-16 07:14:48 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEx7Du=E5gozdB6PsqWNt5vv1X4bDp5dfvk2JAZW2Tpyqw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:55 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-04-16 08:47, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Unless we want to go all the way and have said bot actualy close the CF
> > entry. But the question is, do we?
>
> I don't think so. There are too many special cases that would make this
> unreliable, like one commit fest thread consisting of multiple patches.
>
I definitely don't think we should close just because they show up. It
would also require a keyword somewhere to indicate that it should be
closed. Of course, it can still lead to weird results when the same thread
is attached to multiple CF entries etc. So I agree, I don't think we'd want
that. Which means we'd have the async/out-of-order issue.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Iwata, Aya | 2019-04-16 07:23:21 | RE: libpq debug log |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-04-16 07:01:19 | Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown |