Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit
Date: 2015-03-18 17:12:11
Message-ID: 27431.1426698731@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
>> apply anything during that period. I think the only restriction for the
>> last commitfest is that the committer can not apply a new patch that
>> would have been too big to be submitted to the last commitfest. If
>> enough people feel that this committer behavior during the last
>> commitfest is a problem, we can discuss changing that policy.

> One thing that's crystal clear here is that we don't all agree on what
> the policy actually is.

Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
I'm going to go ahead and push it. If you want to call a vote on
revoking my commit bit, go right ahead.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-03-18 17:13:12 Re: MD5 authentication needs help -SCRAM
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-03-18 17:03:23 Re: GSoC idea - Simulated annealing to search for query plans