Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSL (patch 1)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SSL (patch 1)
Date: 2002-05-27 23:36:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com> writes:
> That's for *you*, and were always meant to be temporary.  I knew there
> would be about a dozen concurrent patches in play, and this helps
> establish precedence if they don't go in in sequence.

I'm a little uncomfortable with that whole approach to things, and was
intending to suggest that you submit the SSL changes as one big patch.
I feel that this is not letting me see the big picture ... quite aside
from the probability of breakage if patches get applied out-of-order.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-05-27 23:46:10
Subject: Re: SSL (patch 3)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-05-27 23:28:30
Subject: Re: COPY and default values

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group