| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Goncharov <alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq: PQcmdStatus, PQcmdTuples signatures can be painlessly improved |
| Date: | 2011-12-13 16:54:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZF1i9omboZNqvU+pBfEjZUPKk_YujDA7F6Uy8Zpng8JQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar dic 13 12:51:54 -0300 2011:
>> If you want this patch to be considered for application, you should
>> post an updated patch which includes the necessary doc changes and add
>> a link to it here:
>>
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
>
> Do we really need a 100% complete patch just to discuss whether we're
> open to doing it?
Of course not. You may notice that I also offered an opinion on the
substance of the patch. In the course of doing that, I don't see why
I shouldn't point out that it's the patch author's responsibility to
provide docs. YMMV, of course.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-12-13 16:55:40 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Alex Goncharov | 2011-12-13 16:43:35 | Re: libpq: PQcmdStatus, PQcmdTuples signatures can be painlessly improved |