From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | jim(at)nasby(dot)net, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New version of money type |
Date: | 2006-10-12 17:21:37 |
Message-ID: | 14003.1160673697@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, my perception of that has always been "it needs to be upgraded or
>> removed". So if D'Arcy wants to work on the improvement angle, I have
>> no problem with him doing so. The thing we need to negotiate is "how
>> much improvement is needed to keep it in core".
> Well, the patch I submitted is definitely an improvement over the
> existing version. Are you saying that I have to make further
> improvements before these ones can be imported?
I didn't say that. I was responding to someone whose position seemed to
be "money is going to be removed, therefore you shouldn't work on it".
I wanted to know exactly what would need to be fixed before they'd not
want it removed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-10-12 17:22:17 | Re: array_accum aggregate |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-12 17:18:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Hints proposal |