Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SSL (patch 1)

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: sugitaDate: 2002-05-29 16:04:20
Subject: Make factorial(0::int2) return 1, as per spec.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-05-28 14:50:48
Subject: Re: revised sample SRF C function; proposed SRF API

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group