On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Josh Williams wrote:
> How's that for over-engineering? ;)
Top notch.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 13:27 -0600, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 02:29:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > This is a nice section layout for a patch review report --- should we
> > > provide an email template like this one f
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 02:29:44PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This is a nice section layout for a patch review report --- should we
> > provide an email template like this one for reviewers to use?
>
> We could, but it might be over-enginee
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This is a nice section layout for a patch review report --- should we
> provide an email template like this one for reviewers to use?
We could, but it might be over-engineering. Those particular section
headers might not be applicable to some
This is a nice section layout for a patch review report --- should we
provide an email template like this one for reviewers to use?
---
Josh Williams wrote:
> Teodor, et al,
>
> This is a review of the Polygons patch:
> htt
Teodor, et al,
This is a review of the Polygons patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a5761a2.8070...@sigaev.ru
There hasn't been any discussion, at least that I've been able to find.
Contents & Purpose
==
This small patch primarily fixes a couple polygon functions,
p
