Hi,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:01:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 06:54:23AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> > Hi, there is a CF entry for this -- is it ready to mark committed?
>
> Oops. I've missed that there was an entry in CF 51. Updated that
> now. Thanks for the
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 06:54:23AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> Hi, there is a CF entry for this -- is it ready to mark committed?
Oops. I've missed that there was an entry in CF 51. Updated that
now. Thanks for the poke.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:23 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:52:40AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Done. The section mistake in REL_16_STABLE was.. Interesting.
Hi, there is a CF entry for this -- is it ready to mark committed?
--
Jo
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:52:40AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback!
Done. The section mistake in REL_16_STABLE was.. Interesting.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:09:57AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:11:57AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Also it looks like that for PG 16, 7471230cc6, did put the functions
> > description
> > in the "Control Data Functions". That looks unintentional too, so m
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:11:57AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Also it looks like that for PG 16, 7471230cc6, did put the functions
> description
> in the "Control Data Functions". That looks unintentional too, so moving it
> to
> "Transaction ID and Snapshot Information Functions" section
