From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |
Date: | 2003-09-29 14:47:09 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B83AF261@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 29 September 2003 15:23
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Dave Page; Alvaro Herrera; Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] more i18n/l10n issues
>
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Dave Page writes:
> >> I find this a little worrying because if we want a feature
> or tweak
> >> for pgAdmin we usually have to fight tooth & nail to
> justify getting
> >> it committed (which is not a bad thing), however 'some guys at Red
> >> Hat' are getting switches added to the postmaster without any
> >> discussion?
>
> > It was not a nice thing to do.
>
> Gimme a break, guys. There *was* discussion, eg here,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-06/msg01092.php
> and the patch was posted for review, see this thread:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-06/msg00420.php
My apologes - I was basing my comments on someone else's assertion that
there was no discussion.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-09-29 14:53:47 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-29 14:45:57 | Re: 2-phase commit |