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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers