| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, prlw1(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump disaster |
| Date: | 2000-01-21 13:57:06 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0001210952320.23487-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I thought these patches should not have been applied without more
> > peer review, and now I'm sure of it. I recommend reverting 'em.
>
> Can we give the submitter a few days to address the issue?
Considering that we haven't even gone BETA yet, I *heavily* second this
... Alfred, so far as I've seen, has a) spent alot of time on these
patches and b) tried to address any concerns as they've been presented
concerning them...
IMHO, if we hadn't commit'd the patches, we wouldn't have found the bug,
and getting feedback on the pathes without applying them, so far, has been
about as painful as pulling teeth ...
>From what I've seen, nobody has been spending much time in libpq *anyway*,
so it isn't as if reverting them if we have to is a big issue ...
But, on the other side of hte coin ... Alfred, we need relatively quick
turnaround on fixing this, as libpq is kinda crucial :)
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian E Gallew | 2000-01-21 13:57:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2000-01-21 13:51:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Building Documentation under Debian |