On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:40:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > Also, as Horiguchi-san pointed out earlier, walreceiver seems need the
> > similar fix.
> Actually, now that I look at it, ready_to_display should as well be
> protected by the lock of the WAL receiver, so it is incorrectly placed
> in walreceiver.h. As you are pointing out, pg_stat_get_wal_receiver()
> is lazy as well, and that's new in 10, so we have an open item here
> for both of them. And I am the author for both things. No issues
> spotted in walreceiverfuncs.c after review.
> I am adding an open item so as both issues are fixed in PG10. With the
> WAL sender part, I think that this should be a group shot.
> So what do you think about the attached?

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
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
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days 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 v10.  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