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

Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14
Date: 2010-02-18 02:27:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> * Fix large object support in pg_dump.  I think this is just waiting
>>> for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct.  I've been
>>> meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
>>> someone else would like to take a look?  This is an open item, so we
>>> should really try to deal with it.
>> Yeah, I think this is a "must fix for alpha" item.  Will look at it
>> tomorrow, god willin an the creek don't rise (or, given the weather
>> around here: the power stays on).
> I've applied that patch after some revisions.
> The only thing still showing as open in the CommitFest webpage is
> the last plperl patch.  I think that's actually done but not marked
> as committed; Andrew?

sorry. fixed.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-18 03:05:08
Subject: Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2010-02-18 01:58:14
Subject: Re: Large object dumps vs older pg_restore

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