| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cfbot wrangling (was Re: Add checkpoint and redo LSN to LogCheckpointEnd log message) |
| Date: | 2022-01-12 06:50:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_apUCB_o8P3x5O8HL9UuVpXxDgKa68CSPebBPCtUW+dxw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 2:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, if you're submitting a patch then you have to attach a complete
> patchset, or the cfbot will be totally lost. Getting the bot to
> understand incremental patches would be useful for sure ... but it's
> outside the scope of what I'm asking for now, which is just clear
> documentation of what the bot can do already.
Right, but the use case I'm mentioning is a bit different: provide
another patch while *not* triggering the cfbot. I've seen cases in
the past where people want to share some code to the OP and it seems
reasonable to allow that without risking the trigger the cfbot, at
least not without the OP validating or adapting the changes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-01-12 06:52:00 | Re: cfbot wrangling (was Re: Add checkpoint and redo LSN to LogCheckpointEnd log message) |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-01-12 06:48:55 | Re: do only critical work during single-user vacuum? |