On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Tom Lane escribió: >>> That would be an argument for sticking this in the next CF, not for >>> applying it now --- it was submitted after the close of the last CF no? > >> Sep. 29 2009? > > Oh, I was thinking it had just come in recently, but looking back you're > right. It did slip through the cracks. > > However, has the patch actually been reviewed? pg_dump is a piece of > code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong, > and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out > in particular cases.
It's a fairly trivial patch. I took a quick look at it. It needs more than that, but I think not too much more. I think it would be less effort for someone to review it and make a decision than it would be to keep it as an open item for the next 6 months. But that's just MHO: if the consensus is to postpone it, then let's just do that and move on. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
