On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 08:19:34AM +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On 2017-05-21 06:37, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> >With this patch on current master my logical replication tests
> >(pgbench-over-logical-replication) run without errors for the first
> >time in many days (even weeks).
> Unfortunately, just now another logical-replication failure occurred.  The
> same as I have seen all along:

This creates a rebuttable presumption of logical replication being the cause
of this open item.  (I am not stating an opinion on whether this rebuttable
presumption is true or is false.)  As long as that stands and Alvaro has not
explicitly requested ownership of this open item, Peter owns it.

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:13:37AM -0700, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I don't think this is my item.  Most of the behavior is old, and
> > pg_stat_get_wal_receiver() is from commit
> > b1a9bad9e744857291c7d5516080527da8219854.
> >
> > I would appreciate if another committer can take the lead on this.
> Those things are on Alvaro's plate for the WAL receiver portion, and I
> was the author of those patches. The WAL sender portion is older
> though, but it seems crazy to me to not fix both things at the same
> time per their similarities.

As a 9.6 commit, b1a9bad cannot be the cause of a v10 open item.  If a v10
commit expanded the consequences of a pre-existing bug, the committer of that
v10 work owns this open item.  If the bug's consequences are the same in v9.6
and v10, this is ineligible to be an open item.  Which applies?

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

Reply via email to