|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Jing Wang <jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge,
>>> it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly.
>>> The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,
>>> but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
>>> a need for it beyond that.
>> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
>> marked this patch Rejected.
> I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the
> status of this in detail. I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now,
> but I reserve the option to revive it in the future.
From my perspective reviving a patch is pretty much always an option.
I'm attempting to update patches based on what I see as the current
status, but my decision is certainly not final and I do make mistakes.
|Next Message||Sergei Kornilov||2018-03-06 15:52:58||Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL|
|Previous Message||Bossart, Nathan||2018-03-06 15:35:13||Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade to clusters with a different WAL segment size|