Gregory Stark wrote:
"Greg Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
I'll submit the proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches again, because some of
previous
messages are filtered due to attachment and I cannot provide whole of patches
yet.
This is actually what you should have done from the beginning. And it only
should have gone to the pgsql-hackers list, which is the only one I'm replying
to. Your patches are at this point a proposal, as you say in the subject, and
those go to the pgsql-hackers list with the minimum of files necessary to
support them. pgsql-patches is generally aimed at patches that have already
been discussed on the hackers list, ones that are basically ready to apply to
the source code.
Some people shout any time you send patches to -hackers. For the -patches is
there mainly to catch large attachments regardless of their maturity.
But it's true that it's best to post a plan and have discussion prior to
developing big patches.
Yes, it might be a better way to develop this feature on reflection.
I'm sorry that I could not submit a proposal by the feature freeze
date of v8.3 unfortunately, so the development of SE-PostgreSQL
(based on v8.2) is overlapped with development cycle of v8.3.
I don't want to repeat same thing twice, so these series of patches
are submitted fot v8.4 development cycle.
The first two of them ([1/4] and [2/4]) are significant part of
SE-PostgreSQL. We can discuss rest of them later. They contains
utility extension and security policy.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
