Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ProcessUtility_hook

From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Date: 2009-12-01 11:52:08
Message-ID: 4B150368.6080509@timbira.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane escreveu:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
>> updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
>> being committed?
> 
> Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
> concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not.  I've tried to avoid
> pre-empting that process.
> 
That's correct. I didn't have time to review the new patch yet. :( I'll do it
later today. IIRC Tom had some objections (during the last CF) the way the
patch was proposed and suggested changes. Let's see if the Takahiro-san did
everything that was suggested.


-- 
  Euler Taveira de Oliveira
  http://www.timbira.com/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Brar PieningDate: 2009-12-01 11:54:03
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-01 11:50:57
Subject: Re: CommitFest status/management

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group