From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CF app feature request |
Date: | 2018-11-20 16:45:20 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEyjc5rDMBZU0nWHw2NxvLW_ZJ3e9owQLuF+9qGAujOAMA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:28 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:15:36PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > Just to make sure, if a duplicated entry will be removed, the patch
> itself
> > will stay or not? I'm asking, because both entries have the same patch
> > referenced, and the admin form says that one of the related items, that
> > would be removed is the patch item.
>
> If you remove only one entry, its references will be removed but the
> second one will remain. If you want me to proceed, I can do so. I have
> done that in the past, and it is not the first time someone registers a
> duplicated entry in the CF app.
>
I'm trying to figure out where this thread left off :) My understanding of
the consensus is we don't actually want/need a change in the app, but are
instead OK with the admin just handling it a somewhat ugly way in the few
cases where it's necessary?
Or is the consensus to add a "Withdrawn" status, just to solve a slightly
different problem from the one that started this thread?
--
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 | Mithun Cy | 2018-11-20 17:54:26 | Re: mysql_fdw crash |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-11-20 16:41:33 | Re: Connection slots reserved for replication |