| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] drop if exists remainder |
| Date: | 2006-06-08 19:18:36 |
| Message-ID: | 137.1149794316@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch
> which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion
> be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original
> feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the
> feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version.
Um, if they're not reading -patches, why would they think the feature
had been accepted, or even submitted? In any case, when we reject a
patch, it's not usually a conclusion that will get reversed just because
more people are involved in the discussion. The people who might
actually be able to *fix* the patch are probably reading -patches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-08 19:35:18 | Re: [PATCHES] drop if exists remainder |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-08 19:15:31 | Re: Running a query twice to ensure cached results. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-08 19:35:18 | Re: [PATCHES] drop if exists remainder |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-08 19:06:01 | Re: [PATCHES] drop if exists remainder |