| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jing Wang <jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE |
| Date: | 2018-03-06 15:25:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20180306152536.lblvkvatqusgrhji@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Steele wrote:
> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge,
> > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly.
> > The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,
> > but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
> > a need for it beyond that.
> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
> marked this patch Rejected.
I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the
status of this in detail. I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now,
but I reserve the option to revive it in the future.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-06 15:29:47 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11 |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-03-06 15:07:39 | Re: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization |