Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
>> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
>> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
>> until the tree opens for 8.5.
> 
> +1.  This is barely even a bug; it's not worth taking any risk for at
> this point.  (It is already too late for a patch applied now to be
> tested by the whole buildfarm before we wrap 8.4.0 --- some machines
> are on a once-a-day cycle.)

Yeah, that was our reasoning as well.

Attached is a patch that takes them both away, so I have something to
put on the wiki :-)


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

• Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? at 2009-06-25 13:29:31 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2009-06-25 13:35:20
	Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2009-06-25 13:29:31
	Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?