Greetings, * osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com (osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com) wrote: > On Monday, July 5, 2021 10:32 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 11:02:01AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > Rather than RfC, the appropriate status seems like it should be > > > Rejected, as otherwise it's just encouraging someone to ultimately > > > waste their time rebasing and updating the patch when it isn't going > > > to ever actually be committed. > > > > Yes, agreed with that. > Thanks for paying attention to this thread. > > This cannot be helped but I've made the patch status as you suggested, > because I judged the community would not accept this idea.
Thanks. Hopefully this will encourage those interested in minimal WAL logging for data loading performance to instead work on additional optimizations for the existing 'minimal' WAL level. Thanks again, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
