| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 07:46:07 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEyouHTjCgxS9uhYwkr3VFfDhwZ=dznvcSwfSWewMHs1Ag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
> 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 ;)
>
>
I was guessing something like the second part there, which is why I figured
this would be a good time to bring this fight back up to the surface ;)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-24 07:50:41 | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-24 07:43:50 | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |