2010/11/22 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> So, please, I know, so you and Tom are busy, but try to spend a few >> time about this problem before you are definitely reject this idea. > > If I were to spend more time on this problem, what exactly would I > spend that time doing and how would it help? If I were interested in > spending time I'd probably spend it pursuing the suggestions Tom > already made, and that's what I think you should do. But I'm not > going to do that, because the purpose of the CommitFest is not for me > to write new patches from scratch that do something vaguely similar to > what a patch you wrote was trying to do. It's for all of us to review > and commit the patches that have already been written. You aren't > helping with that process, so your complaint that we aren't spending > enough time on your patches would be unfair even if were true, and it > isn't. The problem with your patch is that it has a design weakness, > not that it got short shift.
ok, I can only recapitulate so this feature was proposed cca two months ago, and minimally Tom and maybe you did agreement - with request on syntax - do you remember? I am little bit tired so this agreement was changed when I spent my time with this. Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
