On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:06:01PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, David Rowley
> <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 5 May 2016 at 16:04, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I've started making some improvements to this, but need to talk to
> >> Tomas. It's currently in the middle of his night, but will try to
> >> catch him in his morning to discuss this with him.
> >
> > Ok, so I spoke to Tomas about this briefly, and he's asked me to send
> > in this patch. He didn't get time to look over it due to some other
> > commitments he has today.
> >
> > I do personally feel that if the attached is not good enough, or not
> > very close to good enough then probably the best course of action is
> > to revert the whole thing.
> Tom, what do you think about this patch?  Is it good enough, or should
> we revert the whole thing?

[This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.  Simon,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
9.6 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1.  Consequently, I will appreciate your
efforts toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to