| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Date: | 2008-05-16 15:30:05 |
| Message-ID: | 17642.1210951805@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> All of this is getting quite a long way from what was in the commitfest
> queue. Do we still want to try to get this in this cycle, or should it
> be marked returned to author for more work?
So far I think it still falls within the category of allowing the author
to revise his work. I don't want to hold commitfest open waiting on
revisions of this patch, but as long as there's still other stuff being
worked through I don't see why they can't keep trying.
Just for the record, I would really like to close this fest before
PGCon starts. We still have a couple more days to get it done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-05-16 15:31:14 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-05-16 15:26:13 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-05-16 15:31:14 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-05-16 15:26:13 | Re: libpq object hooks |