From: | Mikhail Matrosov <mikhail(dot)matrosov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, ewan_higgs(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |
Date: | 2021-07-23 21:43:32 |
Message-ID: | CADhDkKw9hbgfNxU6PWq3B9YGEx1a+Ornt=XdG9TUMsfZ4KweWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Alvaro and all,
> this patch hasn't been posted by the author so let's assume
> they're not authorizing them to use it.
Not sure what you mean. I am the author and I authorize anyone to do
whatever they want with it.
> Otherwise, why wouldn't they just post it here instead of doing the
absurdly convoluted dance of a github PR?
Well, for me submitting a github PR is a well-established and easy-to-do
procedure which is the same for all libraries. Posting to a new mailing
list definitely is not. I've spent around 15 minutes trying to do a proper
reply to the thread and did not succeed.
Another reason to post a PR is that we consume libpq via conan, and
releasing a new revision of the conan recipe for the same library version
is a relatively fast and well-defined process. While waiting for a new
version of a library with a patch depends heavily on a particular library.
I am not aware of the release cadence of libpq.
Anyway, I am very glad there is swift feedback from you guys and I am
looking forward to your comments on the proper way to fix the issue!
-----
Best regards, Mikhail Matrosov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-07-23 21:46:37 | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-07-23 21:24:04 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |