Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dan Colish <dan(at)unencrypted(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on
Date: 2009-11-12 20:07:27
Message-ID: 603c8f070911121207tc6d4d5w63f3811d897769f0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan escribió:
>> Alvaro Herrera írta:
>
>> > I have applied this patch after some tinkering.  I mainly added support
>> > for "fetch_args: FORWARD opt_from_in name" and "BACKWARD opt_from_in
>> > name" in ecpg.addons which apparently you forgot.
>>
>> Thanks. Your fix is correct if this patch is considered
>> standalone. This means I have to re-post the later
>> patches to fix the reject this fix causes in them.
>
> Yeah.  BTW I don't think the rest of the pieces in this series make
> sense to apply separately, because they don't do anything useful by
> themselves (one of them introduces an unused function, what good is in
> that?).  I think they should be submitted as a single patch.
>
> If you want to submit patches in a series like this one, they need to be
> considered standalone, I think.  The Linux kernel devs work differently
> than us here.

Zoltan broke them up because Michael asked him to do so.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-11-12 20:12:39 Re: next CommitFest
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-11-12 20:01:26 Re: recovery is stuck when children are not processing SIGQUIT from previous crash