On 06/18/2018 01:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-06-18 13:21:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think there's also a question of how much a patch is blocking you /
> others. A shorter question period is more understandable if it's step
> 3/40, rather than 1/1...
Agreed. For non-critical stuff like this it seems like waiting 2 or 3
On 2018-06-18 13:21:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> > > I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> > > should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
> >
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> One which includes at least half a working day in a different timezone.
> You asked mid-afternoon on a Friday in a timezone pretty far west.
It was 11 am PST.
I'll make a note about this. It won't happen again.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> > should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
>
> What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:33 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> > should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
>
> What wait period do you think is appropriate in
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
> should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.
What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?
The doc section that I removed was a last minute
On 2018-Jun-15, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I propose removing the "Included attributes in B-tree indexes"
> top-level section of chapter 63 from the user facing documentation.
Hi Peter,
I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for
