On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:10:14PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/25/13 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> This matter was already closed: > >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=949 > >> > >> It looks like your patch reverts part of that. > > > > Uh, I am confused because the patch at: > > > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=950 > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1352874080.4647.0@mofo > > > > shows "configuration parameter" being moved to <secondary>, though this > > commit: > > > > > > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94 > > The discussion yielded a patch that is different from the commit fest entry. > > We index all GUC settings as > > <primary><varname>something</varname> configuration parameter</primary> > > which the commit a301eb99c9537186f7dd46ba418e84d755227a94 also made the case > for search_path. > > Your two commits changed that again. > > > shows it not as secondary. Would you please suggest a patch or patch > > it? Thanks. > > I think both of your commits should be reverted.
I now see the pattern. Thanks. Patches reverted. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
