On 3/16/16 7:59 AM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something
>>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well
On 12 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something
>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well
>> advised to boot it to the 2016-09 CF and f
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'd also be interested in hearing Kevin Grittner's thoughts about
> serializability in a distributed environment, since he's obviously
> thought about the topic of serializability quite a bit.
I haven't done a thorough search of the academic
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something
>>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well
>>> advised to bo
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something
>> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well
>> advised to boot it to the 2016-09 CF and focus our efforts on other st
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO this is not committable as-is, and I don't think that it's something
> that will become committable during this 'fest. I think we'd be well
> advised to boot it to the 2016-09 CF and focus our efforts on other stuff
> that has a better chance
On 03/11/2016 11:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Steele wrote:
Is anyone willing to volunteer a review or make an argument for the
importance of this patch?
There's been a lot of discussion on another thread about this patch.
The subject is "
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> Is anyone willing to volunteer a review or make an argument for the
>> importance of this patch?
> There's been a lot of discussion on another thread about this patch.
> The subject is "The plan for FDW-based sharding"
On 3/11/16 2:00 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David Steele I'm concerned about the lack of response or reviewers for this patch.
> It may be because everyone believes they had their say on the original
> thread, or because it seems like a big change to go
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 2/10/16 12:50 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
> > PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of
> > eXtensible Transaction Manager API.
> > Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here:
> >
> >
> http:/
On 3/11/16 1:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion on another thread about this patch.
> The subject is "The plan for FDW-based sharding", but the thread kind
> of got partially hijacked by this issue. The net-net of that is that
> I don't think we have a clear enough idea
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Steele wrote:
> On 2/10/16 12:50 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of
>> eXtensible Transaction Manager API.
>> Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.postg
On 2/10/16 12:50 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of
> eXtensible Transaction Manager API.
> Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f2766b97-555d-424f-b29f-e0ca0f6d1...@p
Hi,
PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of
eXtensible Transaction Manager API.
Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f2766b97-555d-424f-b29f-e0ca0f6d1...@postgrespro.ru
The API patch itself is small enough
14 matches
Mail list logo
