From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cutting down the TODO list thread |
Date: | 2023-05-16 13:52:02 |
Message-ID: | CAEze2Whz2bwnxBVOwuXZHZo10srvTEPs2-OwFvA5a=AahTwVQg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 14:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:18 AM Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Agreed; and that's why I'm not against removing the specific wording
> > of the item. This may not have been clearly described in my previous
> > mail, but I would instead like to see a TODO list item which covers
> > the need to improve the number of cases where we provide actionable
> > advice, and specifically those cases where there is not One Obvious
> > Issue (OOI;s like when getting close to wraparound; or close
> > checkpoints, or ...).
>
> My vote is for just removing the item, rather than putting it on the
> not wanted list. I don't think it's useful to put things as general as
> what you say here on the list. But putting this item in the not wanted
> section might imply that it's not an area we're looking to improve,
> which as you say, is false.
That makes sense. Agreed.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2023-05-16 14:00:51 | Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-16 13:49:10 | Re: Assert failure of the cross-check for nullingrels |