On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Simple patch, applies and makes cleanly, does what it says and says what it >> does. >> >> If a transaction holding locks aborts on an otherwise idle server, perhaps >> it will take a very long time for a log-shipping standby to realize this. >> But I have hard time believing that anyone who cares about that would be >> using log-shipping (rather than streaming) anyway. >> >> Marking it ready for committer. >> >> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer > > Thanks! That was deadly fast. > > Just wondering: shouldn't we keep the discussion around this patch on > -bugs instead? Not saying you are wrong, Jeff, I am just not sure what > would be the best practice regarding patches related to bugs. I would > think that it is at least necessary to keep the person who reported > the bug in CC to let him know the progress though.
I wasn't sure about -bugs vs -hackers either, but in this case I used the review form built into the commit-fest app, and the app is what sent the email. As far as I know I can't change its destination or its CC list, even if I had thought ahead to do so. I think the bug reporter should certainly be CCed when the bug is closed, I don't know about intermediate steps in the "sausage making" process. Something to think about for a bug-tracker we might implement in the future. I think most bugs are summarily handled by committers, so don't go through the commitfest process at all. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
