On 3/24/20 10:58 AM, David Steele wrote:
On 11/29/19 12:22 AM, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
I couldn't understand what you meant.
Do you say that we shouldn't change pqWait() behavior?
Or should I modify my patch to use pqDropConnection()?
This patch no longer applies:
On 11/29/19 12:22 AM, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
It seems that you did not think so at that time.
# Please refer to [1]
I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
I
Hi, Michael-san.
Sorry, I have missed your e-mail...
> From: Michael Paquier
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > It seems that you did not think so at that time.
> > # Please refer to [1]
> >
> > I don't think all the reviewers are completely
Michaël,
Not this round.
You have registered yourself as a reviewer of this patch since the end
of June. Could you please avoid that? Sometimes people skips patches
when they see someone already registered to review it.
Yep. ISTM that I did a few reviews on early versions of the patch,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:25:07PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Not this round.
You have registered yourself as a reviewer of this patch since the end
of June. Could you please avoid that? Sometimes people skips patches
when they see someone already registered to review it.
The patch applies
By the way, Fabien, you are marked as a reviewer of this patch since the
end of June. Are you planning to review it?
Not this round.
--
Fabien.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:38:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking
> at it, and still have the same impression when looking at the last
> version. Just with a quick look, assuming that you can bypass all
> cleanup operations
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> It seems that you did not think so at that time.
> # Please refer to [1]
>
> I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking
at it, and
Hi, Michael-san.
> From: Michael Paquier
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 04:13:36AM +, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > I don't think that the rest one of my proposals has been rejected
> > completely, so I want to restart discussion.
> I recall on the matter that there was consensus that
Hello all.
First, I'd like to appreciate with all your reviewing and discussion in the
last CommitFest[1].
I don't think that the rest one of my proposals has been rejected completely,
so I want to restart discussion.
It is a timeout parameter in interfaces/libpq.
Consider some situations
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 04:13:36AM +, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> I don't think that the rest one of my proposals has been rejected
> completely, so I want to restart discussion.
I recall on the matter that there was consensus that nobody really
liked this option because it enforced a
11 matches
Mail list logo
