Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> > > Not to pick on you personally, but this is the kind of review that should
> > > have
> > > happened six months ago, not during a "why is our development process
> > > inadequate" discussion on the eve of beta.
> >
> > Right now, today, in this thread, is the first time that we've had any
> > opportunity to debate the design of SEPostgres with knowledgeable people
> > other than KaiGai-san. It would likely be better if we started a new
> > thread with a more appropriate title, but I see nothing wrong with
> > asking pretty fundamental questions.
>
> Except that Bruce and I already checked detailed documentation
> references on this very topic months ago. Check with Bruce; he was
> careful to point those things out to me, so I'm sure he'll do the same
> for you. I'm satisfied, on this point.
Sure, here is the email:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg01750.php
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
