Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> What I've seen of Heikki's work thus far has led me to believe that >> his reasons for rejecting the patch were good ones, but I don't >> specifically what they were. It would be helpful, I think, to >> reiterate them or repost links to the relevant messages in the >> archives; it would also be great if we could get an estimate of how >> close the patch is to being committable. Does it still need massive >> work, or is it getting fairly close, or what? Are the issues code >> cleanliness/maintainability, bugs, missing functionality?
> This is where we left off: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49a64d16.8010...@enterprisedb.com There were adjacent remarks suggesting that large other parts of the patch remained to be reviewed, as well. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01268.php regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
