| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(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: | 2015-03-18 17:26:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20150318172653.GN27420@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
> improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
> I'm going to go ahead and push it. If you want to call a vote on
> revoking my commit bit, go right ahead.
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-03-18 17:28:13 | Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-03-18 17:24:31 | Re: Can pg_dump make use of CURRENT/SESSION_USER |