| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 beta |
| Date: | 2006-09-04 15:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 25084.1157385589@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid.
> To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone
> wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the "if no
> one objects, I'll just commit it" mode that is sometimes going on. Has
> anyone actually tested the patch?
Perhaps more to the point: a refactorization patch is all about beauty
in the eye of the beholder. If Peter, the original author of the guc
code, thinks that it's a disimprovement, I think it's a hard argument
to make that the patch should go in anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 16:03:50 | Re: Optimizing prepared statements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 15:52:46 | Re: Backend SSL configuration enhancement |