Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqS9inxOr0Q2ULgmeOS-C0Mf8AKCT_ZFtNeRNeEwQb1etQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> > The previous patch would not compile on the latest HEAD. Here's updated
>> > patch.
>>
>> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't apply any more.  But we have
>> bigger things to worry about.
>>
>
> Here's updated patch. I didn't use version numbers in file names in my
> previous patches. I am starting from this onwards.

Ashutosh, others, this thread has been stalling for more than 1 month
and a half. There is a new patch that still applies (be careful of
whitespaces btw), but no reviews came in. So what should we do? I
would tend to move this patch to the next CF because of a lack of
reviews.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types