On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem >>> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts > >> Hmmm.... Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since >> the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code, >> which he posted before the CF but didn't add to the CF page. Is >> reviewing that a process violation? Or was discussing it before the >> CF the process issue? > > I thought the whole topic should have been held off till after the CF, > probably till after the bulk of beta testing work is done. It's a > sufficiently large and difficult problem that nobody can really give you > any meaningful feedback without taking more time away from our current > set of problems than I think is appropriate. > > Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were just > letting people know that you intended to work on this over a long > period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual code in it > that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and that I thought > was a distraction at this late stage of the cycle.
I actually thought that was a good thing to do, versus developing totally out of site, though I admit I have had zero time to read the code, and probably won't for a while. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
