| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |
| Date: | 2014-09-08 14:07:58 |
| Message-ID: | 456.1410185278@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-09-04 14:19:47 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Yes. I plan to push the patch this weekend. Sorry for the delay.
> I'm about to push this. Is it ok to first push it to master and only
> backpatch once a couple buildfarm cycles haven't complained?
It makes for a cleaner commit history if you push concurrently into
all the branches you intend to patch. That also gives more buildfarm
runs, which seems like a good thing for this sort of patch.
That is, assuming that we ought to backpatch at all, which to my mind
is debatable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-09-08 14:08:02 | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-09-08 12:30:32 | Re: postgres_fdw behaves oddly |