On 15 December 2017 at 00:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 12/14/2017 01:46 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > On 7 December 2017 at 01:22, Petr Jelinek
> > mailto:petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 05/12/17 21:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > Generally we write if (a &
On 12/14/2017 01:46 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 7 December 2017 at 01:22, Petr Jelinek
> mailto:petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/17 21:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > Generally we write if (a && b) { ... } not if (a) { if (b) .. }
> >
>
> It's rather ugly
On 7 December 2017 at 01:22, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 05/12/17 21:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > Generally we write if (a && b) { ... } not if (a) { if (b) .. }
> >
>
> It's rather ugly with && because one of the conditions is two line, but
> okay here you go. I am keeping the brackets even if no
On 05/12/17 21:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> To me it looks like it's time to get this committed, marking as such.
>
> This version has noticeably more code rearrangement than before, and
> I'm not sure that is actually buying us anything. Why n
On 6 December 2017 at 04:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > To me it looks like it's time to get this committed, marking as such.
>
> This version has noticeably more code rearrangement than before, and
> I'm not sure that is actually buying us an
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> To me it looks like it's time to get this committed, marking as such.
This version has noticeably more code rearrangement than before, and
I'm not sure that is actually buying us anything. Why not keep the
changes minimal?
Also, TBH, this d
On 29 November 2017 at 23:59, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17/11/17 08:35, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >
> > Moving around the code allow us to place ps_is_send_pending() in
> > the while condition, which seems to be more proper place to do
> > that. I haven't added test for this particular ca
Hi,
On 17/11/17 08:35, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> Moving around the code allow us to place ps_is_send_pending() in
> the while condition, which seems to be more proper place to do
> that. I haven't added test for this particular case.
>
> I tested this that
>
> - cleanly applies on the curren
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> I'm a reviewer of this patch but I think I'm not allowed to mark
> this "Ready for Commiter" since the last change is made by me.
Yes, it is a better idea to wait for reviews here.
--
Michael
Ouch.. I'd doubly mistaked.
> I found that the patch is the latest one and will look this
> soon. Sorry for the ignorance.
Thats...wrong. Sorry. There's no new patch since the Reboer's
comment.
I think this is just a bug fix and needs no more argument on its
functionality. (and might ought to b
Hello,
At Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:24:08 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20171117.132408.85564852.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > Well, even the CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() can be called unconditionally yes.
> > It just seems like it's needless call as we'll call both in for
Hello,
At Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:54:09 +0100, Petr Jelinek
wrote in
> Hi,
>
> thanks for checking.
>
> On 02/11/17 10:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
> > wrote:
> >> sorry for the delay but I didn't have much time in past weeks to follow
> >> this thread.
12 matches
Mail list logo
