Dne 21.1.2014 18:52 "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> napsal(a): > > Hello > > I disagree with it. There was no any request to move "ready for commit" patches to next commitfest! I expected so only unfinishing patches should by moved there by their authors. I sent question to Peter E. But without reply, but Tom did commits from thist list, so I expected so there is some agreement about it and I did'nt any alarm. > > My patch there is prerequsity for "dump --if-exi
Sorry, train and mobile :( It is required for "dump --if-exists" feature. Regards Pavel > > Dne 21.1.2014 17:41 "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> napsal(a): > >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> >> With apologies to our beloved commitfest-mace-wielding CFM, commitfest >> >> 2013-11 intentionally still contains a few open patches. I think that >> >> CF is largely being ignored by most people now that we have CF 2014-01 >> >> in progress. If we don't want to do anything about these patches in the >> >> immediate future, I propose we move them to CF 2014-01. >> > >> > I think the idea was that patch authors should take responsibility for >> > pushing their patches forward to 2014-01 if they still wanted them >> > considered. Quite a few patches already were moved that way, IIRC. >> >> Agreed on that general theory. >> >> And, also, yeah, the shared memory message queueing stuff got >> committed. Sorry, I missed the fact that there was still an open CF >> entry for that; I assumed that it would have been marked Returned with >> Feedback. >> >> -- >> 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
