Greg Smith píše v út 15. 12. 2009 v 12:10 -0500:
Please send that updated version, and let's keep working on this into
the next CommitFest, where it will be in the front of the queue rather
than how it ended up at the tail of this one just based on its
submission date. You're not really
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Bernd Helmle píše v po 14. 12. 2009 v 20:42 +0100:
Oh, and i was under the opinion the last discussions were about executor
probes only (note the patch is split up into two parts now, SLRU and
executor probes). The latter won't be fixed, but it seems the SLRU part at
--On 15. Dezember 2009 12:10:09 -0500 Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
But I'm afraid we're already out of time for this one if you're still
tweaking the probes here. With a functional change like that, our
normal process at this point would be to have the reviewer re-evaluate
things
--On 10. Dezember 2009 16:49:50 +0100 Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com
wrote:
You need to determine which SLRU is used. Because SLRUs are initialized
during startup pointer should be same in all backends. If I think more
about it. Maybe it could be goot to add probe also into
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de wrote:
--On 10. Dezember 2009 16:49:50 +0100 Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com
wrote:
You need to determine which SLRU is used. Because SLRUs are initialized
during startup pointer should be same in all backends. If I think
--On 14. Dezember 2009 07:49:34 -0500 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since the author has pretty much admitted he didn't fix any of the
issues that were raised by the last committer review, I'm a little
confused about why you're asking for another one.
It wasn't clear to me what
--On 14. Dezember 2009 20:33:12 +0100 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de
wrote:
Since the author has pretty much admitted he didn't fix any of the
issues that were raised by the last committer review, I'm a little
confused about why you're asking for another one.
It wasn't clear to me what
Bernd Helmle píše v po 14. 12. 2009 v 20:42 +0100:
--On 14. Dezember 2009 20:33:12 +0100 Bernd Helmle maili...@oopsware.de
wrote:
Since the author has pretty much admitted he didn't fix any of the
issues that were raised by the last committer review, I'm a little
confused about why
--On 8. Dezember 2009 11:10:44 +0100 Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com
wrote:
If you think that it is better I could split patch into two separate
patches and both can be reviewed separately.
I split up this patch into two separate patches: one for SLRU and one for
the executor probes.
Dne 10.12.09 15:51, Bernd Helmle napsal(a):
--On 8. Dezember 2009 11:10:44 +0100 Zdenek Kotala
zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
If you think that it is better I could split patch into two separate
patches and both can be reviewed separately.
I split up this patch into two separate patches:
--On 9. Dezember 2009 19:08:07 -0500 Theo Schlossnagle je...@omniti.com
wrote:
Now, there was some indication that there was a better place to probe
that would be more comprehensive -- that should be addressed.
For now there exists no consensus where they should go in. Tom pointed out
On Dec 8, 2009, at 5:10 AM, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
Dne 8.12.09 00:27, Bernd Helmle napsal(a):
--On 13. November 2009 23:29:41 +0100 Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com
wrote:
t contains two DTrace probe groups. One is related to monitoring SLRU
and second is about executor nodes.
I
Dne 8.12.09 00:27, Bernd Helmle napsal(a):
--On 13. November 2009 23:29:41 +0100 Zdenek Kotala
zdenek.kot...@sun.com wrote:
t contains two DTrace probe groups. One is related to monitoring SLRU
and second is about executor nodes.
I merged it with the head.
Original end of mail thread is
--On 13. November 2009 23:29:41 +0100 Zdenek Kotala zdenek.kot...@sun.com
wrote:
t contains two DTrace probe groups. One is related to monitoring SLRU
and second is about executor nodes.
I merged it with the head.
Original end of mail thread is here:
14 matches
Mail list logo
