Hi! Thanks for the answer. Sounds good.
On 2016-02-08 18:47:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > and if I'd gone out of my way to say "hey, everybody, here's a patch > that you might want to object to" I'm sure I could have found some > volunteers to do just that. But, you know, that's not really what I > want. Sometimes I wonder if three shooting-from-the-hip answers shouldn't cost a jog around the block or such (of which I'm sometimes guilty as well!). Wouldn't just help the on-list volume, but also our collective health ;) > Unless you or Noah want to take a hand, I don't expect to get that > sort of review. Now, that having been said, I think your frustration > with the way I handled it is somewhat justified, and since you are not > arguing for a revert I'm not sure what I can do except try not to let > my frustration get in the way next time. Which I will try to do. FWIW, I do hope to put more time into reviewing parallelism stuff in the coming weeks. It's hard to balance all that one likes to do. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
