Re: CF app feature request

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Or is the consensus to add a "Withdrawn" status, just to solve a slightly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/>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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