| From: | Jean-Michel POURE <jm(dot)poure(at)freesurf(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Kovacs Zoltan" <kovacsz(at)pc10(dot)radnoti-szeged(dot)sulinet(dot)hu> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: alter table drop column status |
| Date: | 2002-02-13 08:09:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200202130809.g1D89gL02029@www1.translationforge |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le Mercredi 13 Février 2002 06:14, Christopher Kings-Lynne a écrit :
> This seems fantastic - why can't this be committed? Surely if it's
> committed then the flaws will fairly quickly be ironed out? Even if it has
> flaws, then if we say 'this function is not yet stable' at least people can
> start testing it and reporting the problems?
+1. What are the reasons why this hack was not applied?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gordon A. Runkle | 2002-02-13 08:11:00 | Odd statistics behaviour in 7.2 |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-02-13 07:09:01 | Re: benchmarking postgres |