On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Only one version of this patch has been sent at the beginning of this >> thread, and Heikki has clearly expressed his disagreement about at >> least a portion of it at the beginning of this thread, so I find it >> hard to define it as an "uncontroversial" thing and something that is >> clear to have as things stand. Seeing a new version soon would be a >> good next step I guess. > > What is the point in saying this, Michael? What purpose does it serve?
Gee, I think Michael is right on target. What purpose does writing him an email that sounds annoyed serve? There hasn't been a new version of this patch in 9 months, you're clearly not in a hurry to produce one, and nobody else seems to feel strongly that this is something that needs to be done at all. I think we could just let this go and be just fine, but instead of doing that and moving onto patches that people do feel strongly about, we're arguing about this. Bummer. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers