2014-07-01 8:16 GMT+02:00 Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com>:
> On 30 June 2014 22:50, Pavel Stehule Wrote: > > 2014-06-30 12:38 GMT+02:00 Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com>: > > >>If I understand correctly, the design of this patch has already been > >>considered earlier and rejected. So I guess the patch should also be > >>marked rejected? > > > > >I didn't find a related message. > >? > > I think there have been some confusion, the design idea were never > rejected but yes there were few feedback/ concern, which I had clarified. > Also some of the other concerns are already fixed in latest patch. > > So I wanted to have this patch in commitfest application, so that we can > have a healthy discussion and rectify all the issues. > > But now I see that this patch has already been moved to rejected category, > which will put break on further review. > > So is there any way to bring back and continue reviewing this patch. > > Please let me know if any issue or I am missing something. > I didn't watch a discuss about internal implementation, but now, when I am testing this feature - it works well. Surely - this feature has important but with relatively large impact and should be extremely well tested. Now there are no any special test. Probably we can reuse a tests for nested transactions. I prefer this feature will be part of first commitfest due high complexity. Regards Pavel > > > *Thanks and Regards,* > > *Kumar Rajeev Rastogi* >
