On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Oops. I thought you did it already. So done.

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

Reply via email to