| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Date: | 2018-04-06 18:17:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20180406181755.hannd5fjdixwh5kc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-04-06 14:14:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> and granted, too, what is Magnus supposed to do about a couple of
> committers expressing doubts about whether something really ought to
> be committed? Is that an absolute bar? It wasn't phrased as such,
> nor do we really have the authority. At the same time, those concerns
> didn't generate much discussion and, at least in my case, are not
> withdrawn merely because time has passed.
Yea, I don't think they're an absolute blocker. But imo more than
sufficient reason to give the list a head up of a day or two that the
patch is intended to be committed.
I'd only pointed the message out because JD said something about me not
having participated in the earlier discussion.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-04-06 18:18:00 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-04-06 18:14:40 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |