On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 03:37:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > For now, I think that just moving forward with 0001, and then revisit > 0002 once the other 2PC patch is settled makes the most sense. On the > other thread, the current 2PC behavior can create silent data loss so > I would like to back-patch it, so that would be less work.
Are there any objections with this plan? If none, then I would like to move on with 0001 as there is clearly a consensus to simplify the work of translators and to clean up the error code paths for read() calls. Let's sort of the rest after the 2PC code paths are addressed. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
