On 21.12.2012 21:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 21 December 2012 19:35, Bruce Momjian<br...@momjian.us> wrote:
It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original
developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this.
Well, Robert and I remember it differently.
Anyway, I will ask for a vote now.
And what will you ask for a vote on? Why not spend that effort on
solving the problem? Why is it OK to waste so much time?
Having already explained how to do this, I'll add backwards
compatibility within 1 day of the commit of the patch you claim was
blocked by this. I think it will take me about an hour and not be very
invasive, just to prove what a load of hot air is being produced here.
I haven't been following this.. Could you two post a link to the patch
we're talking about, and the explanation of how to add backwards
compatibility to it?
Just by looking at the last few posts, this seems like a no brainer. The
impression I get is that there's a patch that's otherwise ready to be
applied, but Simon and some others want to have backwards-compatiblity
added to it first. And Simon has a plan on how to do it, and can do it
in one day. The obvious solution is that Simon posts the patch, with the
backwards-compatibility added. We can then discuss that, and assuming no
surprises there, commit it. And everyone lives happily ever after.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
