On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Rajeev rastogi <
rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 01 July 2014 12:00, Amit Kapila Wrote:
> >Simon has mentioned that exactly this idea has been rejected at
>
> >PGCon 2 years back. Please refer that in below mail:
>
> >
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/BF2827DCCE55594C8D7A8F7FFD3AB7713DDE136A@SZXEML508-MBX.china.huawei.com >
>
>
> >As far as I can see, you never came back with the different solution.
>
>
>
> Yeah right. So for this I tried to search archived mails to get the details about the discussion but I could not find anything regarding design.
> So I am not sure how shall I make my solution different from earlier as earlier solution is not accessible to me.
I haven't read your idea/patch in any detail, so can't comment
on whether it is good or bad. However I think if one of the
Committers has already mentioned that the same idea has been
rejected previously, then it makes little sense to further review
or update the patch unless you know the reason of rejection and
handle it in an acceptable way.
Now as far as I can understand, the problem seems to be in a way
you have defined Autonomous Transaction Storage which can lead
to consumption of additional client slots, this is just what I could make
sense from above mail but I am not completely sure on this matter.
