On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I'm busy working on fixing an OpenSSL bug affecting all released
> versions right at the moment, but have a number of complex 9.6 patches
> to review, most of which are in need of support. I'm very busy.
> I said that I'd get to this patch soon. I might be kicking the can
> down the road a little with this patch; if so, I'm sorry. I suggest we
> leave it at that, until the CF is almost over or until I produce a
Sure, and if everybody does that, then there will be 40 patches that
get updated in the last 2 days if the CommitFest, and that will be
impossible. Come on. You're demanding a degree of preferential
treatment which is unsupportable. You're also assuming that anybody's
going to be willing to commit that revision when you produce it, which
looks to me like an unproven hypothesis.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: