On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:26:28PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:23:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
> > > I'm inclined to change gen_random_uuid() to throw an error if the server 
> > > is
> > > built with --disable-strong-random, like gen_random_bytes() does. That 
> > > way,
> > > they would behave the same.
> > 
> > No objections to do that. I guess you don't need a patch. As this is
> > new to 10, I have added an open item.
> [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Heikki,
> 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.
> [1] 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  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