On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:01:57AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/2/17 21:44, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> I wonder if we should have an --no-subscriptions option, now that they
> >> are dumped by default, just like we have --no-blobs, --no-owner,
> >> --no-password, --no-privileges, --no-acl, --no-tablespaces, and
> >> --no-security-labels.  It seems like there is probably a fairly large
> >> use case for excluding subscriptions even if you have sufficient
> >> permissions to dump them.
> > 
> > [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
> > 
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Peter,
> > 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
> > v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days 
> > 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 v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your 
> > efforts
> > toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> I consider this item low priority and don't plan to work on it before
> all the other open items under logical replication are addressed.
> (Here, working on it would include thinking further about whether it is
> necessary at all or what alternatives might look like.)

That's informative, but it's not a valid status update.  This PostgreSQL 10
open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send a valid status
update within 24 hours.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:

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

Reply via email to