On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> The reason for not updating the patch related to this thread is that it is
>> dependent on the work for refactoring the tranches for LWLocks [1]
>> which is now coming towards an end, so I think it is quite reasonable
>> that the patch can be updated for this work during commit fest, so
>> I am moving it to upcoming CF.
>
> Thanks. I think the tranche reworks are mostly done now, so is anyone
> submitting an updated version of this patch?
>
> Also, it would be very good if someone can provide insight on how this
> patch interacts with the other submitted patch for "waiting for
> replication" https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/436/
> Andres seems to think that the other patch is completely independent of
> this one, i.e. the "waiting for replication" column needs to exist
> separately and not as part of the "more descriptive" new 'waiting'
> column.
Yeah, I really don't agree with that. I think that it's much better
to have one column that says what you are waiting for than a bunch of
separate columns that tell you whether you are waiting for individual
things for which you might be waiting. I think this patch, which
introduces the general mechanism, should win: and the other patch
should then be one client of that mechanism.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
