On Thursday 14 January 2010 13:21:07 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:23 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:58 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > I am still testing patch, so should be confident to commit tomorrow
> > > > barring issues.
> > >
> > > I have only lo
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:23 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:58 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > I am still testing patch, so should be confident to commit tomorrow
> > > barring issues.
> > I have only looked at briefly because right now I dont have the time (going
> > to
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:58 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I am still testing patch, so should be confident to commit tomorrow
> > barring issues.
> I have only looked at briefly because right now I dont have the time (going
> to
> eat at a friends place...) but I think I spotted an issue:
> Th
Hi Simon,
On Wednesday 13 January 2010 19:24:22 Simon Riggs wrote:
> We've been chewing around query cancel on Hot Standby and I think things
> have got fairly confusing, hence a new thread.
Good idea.
> I enclose a patch that includes all the things that we all agree on so
> far, in my understan
We've been chewing around query cancel on Hot Standby and I think things
have got fairly confusing, hence a new thread.
I enclose a patch that includes all the things that we all agree on so
far, in my understanding
* Recovery conflict processing uses SIGUSR1 rather than shmem per Tom,
while hol
