On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Amit Kapila wrote: > >> The reason for not updating the patch related to this thread is that it is >> dependent on the work for refactoring the tranches for LWLocks [1] >> which is now coming towards an end, so I think it is quite reasonable >> that the patch can be updated for this work during commit fest, so >> I am moving it to upcoming CF. > > Thanks. I think the tranche reworks are mostly done now, so is anyone > submitting an updated version of this patch? > > Also, it would be very good if someone can provide insight on how this > patch interacts with the other submitted patch for "waiting for > replication" https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/436/ > Andres seems to think that the other patch is completely independent of > this one, i.e. the "waiting for replication" column needs to exist > separately and not as part of the "more descriptive" new 'waiting' > column.
Yeah, I really don't agree with that. I think that it's much better to have one column that says what you are waiting for than a bunch of separate columns that tell you whether you are waiting for individual things for which you might be waiting. I think this patch, which introduces the general mechanism, should win: and the other patch should then be one client of that mechanism. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
