Re: Patch proposal for log_duration

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch proposal for log_duration
Date: 2006-04-11 19:57:48
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10604111257r2b85644dpc1211385fb22ad8a@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce,

On 4/11/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> but at this stage, I am thinking your using a
> home-grown patch is your best approach.

That's what we decided to do even if maintaining our own RPM packages
is not what we used to do for critical software like PostgreSQL.
Thanks to Devrim's work, it was really easy to do so.

Thanks for your answer.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kris Jurka 2006-04-11 20:30:18 Re: [PATCHES] schema-qualified SET CONSTRAINTS
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-04-11 19:00:41 Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor