Re: Update on

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: martin(dot)querleu(at)effisys(dot)fr
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update on
Date: 2020-11-30 15:32:35
Message-ID: CAKFQuwaXrU9yyot5cXbLZni9ATtpVYRYXdr5nObX3yK=JbQ2Kg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 2:04 AM EffiSYS / Martin Querleu <
martin(dot)querleu(at)effisys(dot)fr> wrote:

> Hello David
>
> After reading the commit I understand it modifies the management so that
> parallel workers don't count against connection_limit so I don't understand
> why I experience the problem
>

Nor do I. Hoping a -hacker responds here, I just wanted to comment about
the thread/patch that you mentioned.

What do you mean by "hijacked"?
>
After David's patch got posted, ending the thread in theory, Peter added a
slightly related patch to the thread, "hijacking it" to a new purpose.
What likely happened (though I didn't look) is that the new patch was
realized to have been misplaced and moved to a new thread, but no one noted
that on the old thread and so it looks as if that thread went unresolved if
one doesn't read closely and assume that the "I'll commit this tomorrow"
actually happened - which it did but no link to the commit was added to the
thread.

David J.

In response to

  • Re: Update on at 2020-11-30 09:04:30 from EffiSYS / Martin Querleu

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Bug reporting form 2020-11-30 18:17:59 BUG #16753: 'expected 2-element int8 array' error while getting data using query with subquery
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-11-30 13:57:25 Re: segfault with incremental sort