| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should contrib modules install .h files? |
| Date: | 2018-08-02 13:18:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZB9fVOd-8ZSWLaKX_TVAV9y0+7YrUn8vbpAPL_4XmGPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> By my count of people expressing opinions, we had Michael -1, Stephen -1,
> me -0.1 or so, Alvaro +1, Peter -1, presumably +1 from Andrew; and Andres
> made a comment about not waiting, which perhaps Andrew read as a +1 for
> backpatching. So it's not unreasonable for Andrew to have decided that
> it was about tied. Nonetheless, it does seem like a feature and we're
> past feature freeze, so the default assumption ought to be "no backpatch"
> IMO.
Yeah, I would have voted -1 if I'd realized that it was close. Now
we're in a situation where we have patch not everyone likes not only
in master (which is OK, because we've got a year to decide whether to
change anything) but also in v11 (where we have a lot less time).
That's not so great.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-08-02 13:25:02 | ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-08-02 13:05:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |