| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |
| Date: | 2014-04-24 07:43:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20140424074350.GA16111@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-24 09:39:21 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I can't find that this discussion actually came to a proper consensus, but
> I may be missing something. Did we go with pg_recvlogical just because we
> couldn't decide on a better name, or did we intentionally decide it was the
> best?
I went with pg_recvlogical because that's where the (small) majority
seemed to be. Even if I was unconvinced. There were so many outstanding
big fights at that point that I didn't want to spend my time on this ;)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-04-24 07:46:07 | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-04-24 07:39:21 | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |