| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit |
| Date: | 2015-03-18 17:28:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRod=irduFu=HE5oqducAROXLEfndpgpd=x4qcWYMTY8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
>> improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
>> I'm going to go ahead and push it. If you want to call a vote on
>> revoking my commit bit, go right ahead.
>
> Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
> should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
> personal attack.
+1
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2015-03-18 17:42:39 | Re: Can pg_dump make use of CURRENT/SESSION_USER |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-18 17:26:53 | Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit |