4 ms·
They were not ewview comments. They were arguments about where it ends. He's totalyl unwilling, and says you shouldn't run of of NFS. But then other people are,
by jbverschoor 8y ago
They were not ewview comments. They were arguments about where it ends. He's totalyl unwilling, and says you shouldn't run of of NFS. But then other people are, and are talking about mount options, when the problem clearly lies in the code not following the specs.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- anarazel 8y agoWhy are: > 1. If writes need to be retried, why not reads? (No, that's not an invitation to expand the scope of the patch; it's a question about NFS implementation.) and > 4. As coded, the patch behaves incorrectly if you get a zero return on a retry. If we were going to do this, I think we'd need to absorb the errno-munging currently done by callers into the writeAll function. not review comments? > when the problem clearly lies in the code not following the specs. There were plenty of questions about how exactly the fix should look like below https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AD4A13A5-8778-4D94-BBB5-AB6C13BF752A%40phlo.org https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AD4A13A5-8778-4D94-BBB... How's that not review?