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
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 |