From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
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 |
Subject: | Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14 |
Date: | 2010-02-18 02:27:17 |
Message-ID: | 4B7CA585.6000905@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> * Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
>>> for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
>>> meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
>>> someone else would like to take a look? This is an open item, so we
>>> should really try to deal with it.
>>>
>
>
>> Yeah, I think this is a "must fix for alpha" item. Will look at it
>> tomorrow, god willin an the creek don't rise (or, given the weather
>> around here: the power stays on).
>>
>
> I've applied that patch after some revisions.
>
> The only thing still showing as open in the CommitFest webpage is
> the last plperl patch. I think that's actually done but not marked
> as committed; Andrew?
>
>
>
sorry. fixed.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-02-18 03:05:08 | Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave? |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-02-18 01:58:14 | Re: Large object dumps vs older pg_restore |