On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I think that is totally different angle to fix this issue, so >>> don't you think it is better to start a separate thread to discuss >>> about it for 10.0 and mark this patch as ready for committer. >> >> I'd like to tackle this problem in 10.0, but that will strongly depend >> on how my patches move on in CF1 and CF2. > > By the way, thank you for taking the time to provide input. I think > we're in good shape here now. >
So, if I understand correctly, then we can mark the version posted by you upthread [1] which includes a test along with Kyotaro's fix can be marked as Ready for committer. If so, then please change the status of patch accordingly. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTv5gmKQcNDoFGTGqoqXz2xLz4RRw247oqOJzZTVy6-7Q%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
