Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit
Date: 2015-03-17 17:32:09
Message-ID: 20150317173209.GD10492@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:28:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or in short: yes, the rules are different for committers and non
> committers. That's one of the reasons we are slow to hand out commit
> bits.

I think one reason the rules are different for committers and
non-committers is that committers are responsible for quickly fixing
whatever breakage their patch application caused.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-03-17 17:35:50 Re: Bug in point releases 9.3.6 and 9.2.10?
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2015-03-17 17:31:57 Re: Strange assertion using VACOPT_FREEZE in vacuum.c