| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Williamson <gwilliamson39(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, Joshua Brindle <method(at)manicmethod(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
| Date: | 2009-08-04 01:10:45 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070908031810vad54b41h4ab76b13c78cfbc7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/8/3 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> I now plans to submit two patches for the next commit fest.
> The one is implementation of the abstraction layer.
> The other is basic implementation of the SE-PostgreSQL.
Is this a good idea, or would it be better to focus on the aclcheck
stuff (which is what I understand you to mean here by abstraction
layer) first? You will be much happier getting one patch committed
than two patches not committed... getting two patches of this size in
one CommitFest seems very unlikely, and I worry that the SE-PostgreSQL
patch will distract your time and reviewing time from the aclcheck
refactoring that must get done first, and well.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-08-04 01:14:38 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-04 01:10:04 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |