| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gather Merge |
| Date: | 2016-11-04 05:08:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTMH_fwXhyyH+eUdfNsqMmy5BJxkxPfCA+z7Aft3-h9wQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2015, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
>
> Shouldn't this say just "(c) 2016, PostgreSQL Global Development
> Group"? Are we supposed to be blaming the University of California
> for new files?
If the new file contains a portion of code from this age, yes. If
that's something completely new using only PGDG is fine. At least
that's what I can conclude by looking at git log -p and search for
"new file mode".
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | amul sul | 2016-11-04 06:52:15 | Re: Exclude pg_largeobject form pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-04 04:44:15 | Re: Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location |