* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > Teodor sent it to the list Dec 28, see
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D1A1677.80300%40sigaev.ru
[...]
> That having been said, this looks like a fairly mechanical change to a
> contrib module that you and Teodor wrote.  So I'd say if you guys are
> confident that it's correct, go ahead and commit.  If you need it
> reviewed, or if you can't commit it in the next week or so, I think
> it's going to have to wait for 9.2.

Alright, I've gone through this patch and the main thing it's missing is
documentation, as far as I can tell.  It passes all the regression tests
(and adds a number of them which are then tested with, which is always
nice) and while there are quite a few changes, they're all pretty
mechanical and simple.  There are some really minor whitespace issues
too, but overall I think this is ready to be committed, so long as we
have a promise that someone will write up the documentation for it.

I'd write the docs, but I'm not 100% sure that I know what's going on
enough to really write them correctly. :)  I'm also hoping that someone
else is already working on them.  If not, feel free to ping me and I'll
work on writing up *something*, at least.
	
	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

• btree_gist (was: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof) at 2011-02-08 03:46:28 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: btree_gist (was: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof) at 2011-02-12 08:39:01 from Oleg Bartunov

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-02-11 21:38:30
	Subject: Re: Replication server timeout patch
Previous:	From: Heikki Linnakangas	Date: 2011-02-11 21:30:36
	Subject: Re: Replication server timeout patch

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:	From: Oleg Bartunov	Date: 2011-02-12 08:39:01
	Subject: Re: btree_gist (was: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof)
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2011-02-08 22:42:12
	Subject: Re: btree_gist (was: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof)