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  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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers