Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Browder <tom(dot)browder(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Date: 2016-03-05 14:40:40
Message-ID: CAM-w4HMg7-cYR3nJyMLCV49y_CW13qJOwg_DnHt8dhTTmySvVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tom Browder <tom(dot)browder(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> [Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
>
> Okay, sorry. I thought since the reply was pg-specific it would cut down noise.

I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant, I was removing all the others from
my reply and was saying not to cross-post like that in the first
place. I see you removed them in your response too which is good but I
missed that and responded to the previous message.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2016-03-05 15:41:56 Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Previous Message Tom Browder 2016-03-05 14:35:54 Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)