| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Date: | 2002-09-23 03:21:42 |
| Message-ID: | 14423.1032751302@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> You don't :vote: on stuff like this ...
Why not, exactly?
I wasn't aware that any of core had a non-vetoable right to apply
any patch we liked regardless of the number and strength of the
objections. AFAIK, we resolve differences of opinion by discussion,
followed by a vote if the discussion doesn't produce a consensus.
It was pretty clear that Thomas' original patch lost the vote, or
would have lost if we'd bothered to hold a formal vote. I don't
see anyone arguing against the notion of making XLOG location more
easily configurable --- it was just the notion of making it depend
on environment variables that scared people.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-23 03:54:35 | Re: ECPG |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 03:21:05 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |