On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 23:34 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on this patch?  It is ready for the patch queue?

It's good to be applied, AFAIK.

> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > As previously agreed, reviewing this is a 2 stage process:
> > 1. review/possibly agree OK to commit
> > 2. check with everybody on GENERAL that the restriction to 508 is
> > acceptable
> > 
> > Figure there's no point doing (2) until we agree the proposal/code is
> > workable.

I was hoping you'd give me a "this looks good enough to apply"
thumbs-up, then I'll ask for comments via a Weekly News item.

If I ask for comments and then it is technically rejected we would be
wasting everybody's time.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

• Re: Numeric 508 datatype at 2005-12-02 04:34:00 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2005-12-02 09:39:06
	Subject: Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2005-12-02 08:28:19
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Volkan YAZICI	Date: 2005-12-02 10:20:53
	Subject: Re: Case Conversion Fix for MB Chars
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2005-12-02 08:28:19
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Terry Lee Tucker	Date: 2005-12-02 09:04:38
	Subject: Re: Function returning SETOF
Previous:	From: Cott Lang	Date: 2005-12-02 07:32:26
	Subject: Re: postmaster / resolv.conf / dns problem