| From: | Chris <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OO Patch |
| Date: | 2000-05-20 08:41:28 |
| Message-ID: | 39264FB8.C32416B1@bitmead.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> --- but core prefers not to impose answers on the community. If
> possible we wait until we think we see a consensus on the mailing list.
So is the "community" the hacking community?
Ok then, hands up now anyone with concerns about the compatibility
aspect of this patch (taking into account the backwards compatibly SET
mode), and let's talk about it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Louis-David Mitterrand | 2000-05-20 09:00:56 | rules on INSERT can't UPDATE new instance? |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-05-20 08:29:12 | Re: OO Patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris | 2000-05-20 08:48:47 | Re: OO / fe-be protocol |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2000-05-20 08:29:12 | Re: OO Patch |