On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:>
>> Assuming the command in
>> question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is
>> a little notational convenience
>
> I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:>
> Assuming the command in
> question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is
> a little notational convenience
I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism for a notational convenience).
It has occurred to me to use t
Robert Haas writes:
> Personally, I hate patches that do more than one thing. For me, the
> time required to verify a patch goes as about O(n^2) in its size.
That's exactly why I'm opening that discussion. The main difference
between the approaches I can take is the time it takes to export each
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Either I develop them separately, with separate branches derived from
> the master one, or I develop them as a stack, one on top of the other.
> The difference is my ability to provide a patch for one of the features
> that can be applied
Hi,
I've sent a first patch to improve extensions for 9.2, and intend on
sending a few more which I'll briefly present here. The point of this
email is to figure out how to branch the development, as all the patch
are going to conflict somehow (change the same parts of the code).
Either I develop
