| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bear Giles <bgiles(at)coyotesong(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL (patch 1) |
| Date: | 2002-05-28 16:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0205281136480.1300-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes:
> I'm a little uncomfortable with that whole approach to things, and was
> intending to suggest that you submit the SSL changes as one big patch.
> I feel that this is not letting me see the big picture ... quite aside
> >from the probability of breakage if patches get applied out-of-order.
I had suggested to Bear Giles in private mail that he resend his original
big patch as little pieces that preferrably change only one thing at a
time. At least for me this makes it easier to see what is going on.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sugita | 2002-05-29 16:04:20 | Make factorial(0::int2) return 1, as per spec. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-28 14:50:48 | Re: revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API |