On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 05:08:31PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Just to summarize, apart from above issue, we have discussed two different
> issues related to parallel query in this thread.
> a. Push down of parallel restricted clauses to nodes below gather.  Patch
> to fix same is posted upthread [1].
> b. Wrong assumption that target list can only contain Vars.  Patch to fix
> same is posted upthread [2].  Test which prove our assumption is wrong is
> also posted upthread [3].
> I will add this issue in list of open issues for 9.6 @
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.6_Open_Items
> [1] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Ky2=HsTsT4hmfL=eal5rv0_t59tvwzvk9hqkvn6do...@mail.gmail.com
> [2] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1L-Uo=s4=0jvvva51pj06u5wddvsqg673yuxj_ja+x...@mail.gmail.com
> [3] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-vzg5BkK6kAh3OMhvgRu-uJvkjz47ybtopMAfGJp=z...@mail.gmail.com

[Action required within 72 hours.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.  Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
9.6 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1.  Consequently, I will appreciate your
efforts toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to