On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev > <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> A new version of the patch. I used your idea with macros, and with tranches >> that >> allowed us to remove array with names (they can be written directly to the >> corresponding >> tranche). > > You seem not to have addressed a few of the points I brought up here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaGqhah0VTamsfaOMaE9uOrCPYSXN8hCS9=wirupjs...@mail.gmail.com
More generally, I'd like to stop smashing all the things that need to be done here into one patch. We need to make some changes, such as the one I proposed earlier today, to make it easier to properly identify locks. Let's talk about how to do that and agree on the details. Then, once that's done, let's do the main part of the work afterwards, in a separate commit. We're running through patch versions at light speed here, but I'm not sure we're really building consensus around how to do things. The actual technical work here isn't really the problem; that part is easy. The hard part is agreeing on the details of how it should work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
