On 11/29/19 12:22 AM, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, nagaura.ryo...@fujitsu.com wrote:
It seems that you did not think so at that time.
# Please refer to [1]
I don't think all the reviewers are completely negative.
I recall having a negative impression on the patch when first looking at it,
and still
have the same impression when looking at the last version. Just with a quick
look, assuming that you can bypass all cleanup operations normally taken by
pqDropConnection() through a hijacking of pqWait() is not fine as this routine
explicitely assumes to *never* have a timeout for its wait.
>
I couldn't understand what you meant.
Do you say that we shouldn't change pqWait() behavior?
Or should I modify my patch to use pqDropConnection()?
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2175.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
More importantly it looks like there is still no consensus on this
patch, which is an uncommitted part of a previous patch [1].
Unless somebody chimes in I'll mark this Returned with Feedback at the
end of the CF.
Regards,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/raw/20190406065428.GA2145%40paquier.xyz
