On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
>> On 2011-02-24 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh, did we decide to do it that way? OK with me, but the submitted docs
>>> are woefully inadequate on the point. This behavior is going to have to
>>> be explained extremely clearly (and even so, I bet we'll get bug reports
>>> about it :-().
>> I'm ready to put more effort into the documentation if the patch is
>> going in, but I really don't want to waste my time just to hear that the
>> patch is not going to be in 9.1. Does this sound acceptable?
> I've found some things I don't like about it, but the only part that
> seems far short of being committable is the documentation.
Tom/Alvaro, have the two of you hammered out who is going to finish
this one off? I *believe* Alvaro told me on IM that he was leaving
this one for Tom.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-26 05:10:52|
|Subject: Re: pl/python tracebacks|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-26 05:07:40|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL FDW update|