| From: | Mike Palmiotto <mike(dot)palmiotto(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yuli Khodorkovskiy <yuli(dot)khodorkovskiy(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |
| Date: | 2019-09-26 14:11:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAMN686G+DAJJFt1WN=uwrN4F5TpwqKjuJa_61TArqHR=L=4PJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there
> something we can do to make it more manageable?
Initially we were thinking of submitting one patch for the
centralization work and then separate patches per backend type. We
opted not to go that route, mainly because of the number of resulting
patches (there were somewhere around 13 total, as I remember). If it
makes sense, we can go ahead and split the patches up in that fashion
after rebasing.
>
> I think it would be better to put your 0001 in second place rather than
> first, since your other patch doesn't use it AFAICS and it adds
> functionality that has not yet received approval [or even been
> discussed], while the other is necessary refactoring.
Sounds good.
--
Mike Palmiotto
https://crunchydata.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-09-26 14:36:36 | Re: dropdb --force |
| Previous Message | Paul Guo | 2019-09-26 14:09:46 | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |