Re: YAML

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: YAML
Date: 2009-12-08 15:40:54
Message-ID: 12092.1260286854@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> +1. I'm a little concerned about the bit about the YAML specification
> changing, too, but at least if we can ensure that we're compliant with
> the spec that is current at the time the code goes in we have a leg to
> stand on.

If the spec is in flux, that seems like More Than Sufficient reason
to reject the patch for the time being. It can be resubmitted when
it's no longer shooting at a moving target.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: YAML at 2009-12-08 14:17:59 from Robert Haas

Responses

  • Re: YAML at 2009-12-08 16:07:14 from Greg Sabino Mullane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-12-08 15:51:01 Re: Sought after architectures for the PostgreSQL buildfarm?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2009-12-08 15:26:11 Re: tsearch parser inefficiency if text includes urls or emails - new version