| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | wenjing zeng <wjzeng2012(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gareth Palmer <gareth(at)internetnz(dot)net(dot)nz>, movead li <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax |
| Date: | 2022-03-23 15:32:51 |
| Message-ID: | 2720923.1648049571@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> You have to either include the pre-requisite patches as 0001, and your patch as
> 0002 (as I'm doing now), or name your patch something other than *.diff or
> *.patch, so cfbot doesn't think it's a new version of the patch to be tested.
This patch has been basically ignored for a full two years now.
(Remarkably, it's still passing in the cfbot.)
I have to think that that means there's just not enough interest
to justify committing it. Should we mark it rejected and move on?
If not, what needs to happen to get it unstuck?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-03-23 15:35:09 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-03-23 15:19:26 | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |