On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
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