On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Thinking further, I think changing patch status automatically may never
>> be a good idea; there's always going to be some amount of
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thinking further, I think changing patch status automatically may never
> be a good idea; there's always going to be some amount of common sense
> applied beforehand (such as if a conflict is just an Oid catalog
>
Hi Martin,
> > === Build Failed: 7 ===
> > Title: Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in same
> > transaction
> > Author: Martijn van Oosterhout
> > URL: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/528/
>
> I'm not the author of this patch, and the page
Hi Aleksander,
On 09/13/2017 11:49 AM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
>
> I appreciate your feedback, although it doesn't seem to be completely
> fair. Particularly:
>
>> You gave everyone about 4 hours to object
>
> This is not quite accurate since my proposal was sent 2017-09-11
>
> On 13 Sep 2017, at 11:49, Aleksander Alekseev
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
> I appreciate your feedback, although it doesn't seem to be completely
> fair.
I would like to stress one thing (and I am speaking only for myself here), this
has been feedback and not
Hi Tomas,
I appreciate your feedback, although it doesn't seem to be completely
fair. Particularly:
> You gave everyone about 4 hours to object
This is not quite accurate since my proposal was sent 2017-09-11
09:41:32 and this thread started - 2017-09-12 14:14:55.
> You just changed the status
Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Agree, especially regarding build logs. All of this currently is only an
> experiment. For some reason I got a weird feeling that at this time it
> will be not quite successful one. If there will be too many false
> positives I'll just return the patches back to
Hello, aside from the discussion on the policy of usage of
automation CI, it seems having trouble applying patches.
https://travis-ci.org/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/builds/27450
>1363 heapam.c:2502:18: error: ‘HEAP_INSERT_SKIP_WAL’ undeclared (first use in
>this function)
>1364 if
At Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:13:08 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2017, at 23:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> With all due respect, it's hard not to see this as a disruption of the
>> current CF. I agree automating the patch processing is a
> On 12 Sep 2017, at 23:54, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 09/12/2017 04:14 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> Hello, hackers!
>>
>> Thanks to the work of Thomas Munro now we have a CI for the patches on
>> the commitfest [1]. Naturally there is still room for
On 09/12/2017 04:14 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hello, hackers!
>
> Thanks to the work of Thomas Munro now we have a CI for the patches on
> the commitfest [1]. Naturally there is still room for improvement, but
> in any case it's much, much better than nothing.
>
> After a short discussion
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:55 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 09/12/2017 04:14 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>>
>> Title: Foreign Key Arrays
>> Author: Mark Rofail
>> URL:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1252/
>
>
> I am currently reviewing this one
Hi Andreas,
On 09/12/2017 04:14 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> > Title: Foreign Key Arrays
> > Author: Mark Rofail
> > URL:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1252/
>
> I am currently reviewing this one and it applies, compiles, and passes the
> test suite. It could be
On 09/12/2017 04:14 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Title: Foreign Key Arrays
Author: Mark Rofail
URL:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1252/
I am currently reviewing this one and it applies, compiles, and passes
the test suite. It could be the compilation warnings
15 matches
Mail list logo