On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core
>>> infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if
>>> this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into 9.3 knowing
>>> that once committed, people won't have to wait over a year at the very
>> I don't see why we can't commit the whole thing.  This is way more ready
>> for prime-time than checksums.
> We'll get to it in due time.  In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot
> of stuff in this commitfest.  And I don't follow the logic that says
> that because Simon is trying to push through a not-ready-for-commit
> patch we should drop our standards for other patches.

Hmm, not deaf you know. I would never push through a patch that isn't
ready for commit. If I back something it is because it is ready for
use in production by PostgreSQL users, in my opinion. I get burned
just as much, if not more, than others if that's a bad decision, so
its not given lightly.

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to