Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> The attached addresses items#2 and 3 as listed by Bruce here:
> I think it is consistent with the discussions we had a PGCon last week.
> Any objections to me committing this for 8.4?
It's hard to review it without any docs that say what it's supposed to do.
(And you'd need to patch the docs anyway, eh?)
> On a side note, should I try to address items #1 & #4 for 8.4 as well?
> Perhaps #4 yes since it is arguably a bug fix, but no to #1?
Yeah, my feeling too. #1 is a new feature that was submitted too late
for 8.4. I wouldn't have argued if you'd committed it anyway during
the commitfest, but it's definitely too late now. But #4 seems like
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2009-05-27 23:53:10|
|Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2009-05-27 22:53:19|
|Subject: Positive build result on SuSE|