Noah Misch writes:
> My personal opinion is that the community should not undertake a "rewrite" of
> a nontrivial feature after freeze. The fact that a progenitor was present in
> the tree at freeze doesn't make the rewrite much less risky than a brand new
> feature. So, I suggest that you inste
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:32:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past
> >> due
> >> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:32:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past
>>> due
>>> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on op
Noah Misch writes:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:32:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due
>> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
>> item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do
