Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
Date: 2003-04-19 05:27:15
Message-ID: 19710.1050730035@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Great. I think it can be made acceptable with little work.

IIRC, the reason Jim's patch got bounced was exactly that it offered an
implementation of only one policy, with no possibility of extension.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message S - 2003-04-19 05:35:08 relID and tupleID
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-04-19 05:21:57 Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")