Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> writes:
> That's for *you*, and were always meant to be temporary. I knew there
> would be about a dozen concurrent patches in play, and this helps
> establish precedence if they don't go in in sequence.
I'm a little uncomfortable with that whole approach to things, and was
intending to suggest that you submit the SSL changes as one big patch.
I feel that this is not letting me see the big picture ... quite aside
from the probability of breakage if patches get applied out-of-order.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-05-27 23:46:10|
|Subject: Re: SSL (patch 3) |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-05-27 23:28:30|
|Subject: Re: COPY and default values |