Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> That would be an argument for sticking this in the next CF, not for
>> applying it now --- it was submitted after the close of the last CF no?
> Sep. 29 2009?
Oh, I was thinking it had just come in recently, but looking back you're
right. It did slip through the cracks.
However, has the patch actually been reviewed? pg_dump is a piece of
code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong,
and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out
in particular cases.
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
