| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results |
| Date: | 2017-09-12 20:12:00 |
| Message-ID: | bb837e10-55b0-d509-de42-0628cb45dee7@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/12/2017 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So the conclusion at the end of the last commitfest was that this patch
> should be marked Returned With Feedback, and no new work appears to have
> been done on it since then. Why is it in this fest at all? There
> certainly doesn't seem to be any reason to review it again.
I'm not sure how to read the history of the CF entry. Could it
have rolled over to 2017-09 by default if its status was simply
never changed to Returned with Feedback as intended in the last
one? The history doesn't seem to show anything since 2017-03-19.
I would still advocate for a fast-callback/slow-callback distinction,
as in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59813946.40508%40anastigmatix.net
if that does not seem overcomplicated to more experienced hands.
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2017-09-12 20:39:20 | Re: Create replication slot in pg_basebackup if requested and not yet present |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-12 20:07:35 | Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?) |