On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I didn't add this patch to the commitfest, because it was just a point
>> for discussion and not actually proposed for application.  But It
>> doesn't seem to have provoked much discussion either.
>> Should I go add this to the next commitfest?
>> I do see it listed as a resolved item in
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.4_Open_Items
>> But I can't find a commit that would resolve it, so does that mean the
>> resolution was that the behavior was not new in 9.4 and so didn't need
>> to be fixed for it?
> It looks to me like Robert added that item to the "open items" page,
> but he put it at the bottom --- ie in the "already resolved items"
> list:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=PostgreSQL_9.4_Open_Items&diff=22417&oldid=22380
> Probably this was a mistake and it should have gone into the still-to-do
> list.

Yeah.  Oops.

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:

Reply via email to