Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility
Date
Msg-id 4597.1521338981@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> Thanks for the review. I notice that cfbot has now flagged the patch as
> failing, and when I look into it, it appears that cfbot is building with
> your test patch, and without the xlog.c patch, and so the test naturally
> fails. Does the cfbot require both patches to be attached to the same
> email, in order to include them both?

I believe so --- AFAIK it does not know anything about dependencies
between different patches, and will just try to build whatever patch(es)
appear in the latest email on a given thread.  Munro might be able to
provide more detail.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Precision loss casting float to numeric
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [GSoC 2018] Proposal Draft