| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Date: | 2018-07-31 21:53:19 |
| Message-ID: | 11978.1533073999@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I'm a bit surprised that you decided to push to the 11 branch - the
>> consensus in this thread seem to have gone the other way by my read?
>> Given that that's the rule, and pushing non-fixes is the exception, I'm
>> not particularly ok with just ignoring that?
> +1
By my count of people expressing opinions, we had Michael -1, Stephen -1,
me -0.1 or so, Alvaro +1, Peter -1, presumably +1 from Andrew; and Andres
made a comment about not waiting, which perhaps Andrew read as a +1 for
backpatching. So it's not unreasonable for Andrew to have decided that
it was about tied. Nonetheless, it does seem like a feature and we're
past feature freeze, so the default assumption ought to be "no backpatch"
IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-31 22:00:21 | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-07-31 21:46:15 | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |