| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Chernow" <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Date: | 2008-05-16 15:26:13 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150805160826g30d8cbc8v89a8afc9a66ef45e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> All of this is getting quite a long way from what was in the commitfest
> queue. Do we still want to try to get this in this cycle, or should it be
> marked returned to author for more work?
That's your call...we can have a patch up within 24 hours or so. My
suggestion would be to let us put up an updated version in the May
queue, and if there are any further serious objections we can push it
to the next queue giving some more time for things to percolate.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-16 15:30:05 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-16 15:24:10 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-16 15:30:05 | Re: libpq object hooks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-16 15:24:10 | Re: libpq object hooks |