Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Simple patch, applies and makes cleanly, does what it says and says what it does.
>>
>> If a transaction holding locks aborts on an otherwise idle server, perhaps it will take a very long time for a log-shipping standby to realize this. But I have hard time believing that anyone who cares about that would be using log-shipping (rather than streaming) anyway.
>>
>> Marking it ready for committer.
>>
>> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
>
> Thanks! That was deadly fast.
>
> Just wondering: shouldn't we keep the discussion around this patch on
> -bugs instead? Not saying you are wrong, Jeff, I am just not sure what
> would be the best practice regarding patches related to bugs. I would
> think that it is at least necessary to keep the person who reported
> the bug in CC to let him know the progress though.

I wasn't sure about -bugs vs -hackers either, but in this case I used
the review form built into the commit-fest app, and the app is what
sent the email. As far as I know I can't change its destination or
its CC list, even if I had thought ahead to do so.

I think the bug reporter should certainly be CCed when the bug is
closed, I don't know about intermediate steps in the "sausage making"
process. Something to think about for a bug-tracker we might
implement in the future. I think most bugs are summarily handled by
committers, so don't go through the commitfest process at all.

Cheers,

Jeff