On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 21.12.2012 21:43, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 21 December 2012 19:35, Bruce Momjian<br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> >>>> It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original >>>> developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this. >>> >>> >>> Well, Robert and I remember it differently. >>> >>> Anyway, I will ask for a vote now. >> >> >> And what will you ask for a vote on? Why not spend that effort on >> solving the problem? Why is it OK to waste so much time? >> >> Having already explained how to do this, I'll add backwards >> compatibility within 1 day of the commit of the patch you claim was >> blocked by this. I think it will take me about an hour and not be very >> invasive, just to prove what a load of hot air is being produced here. > > > I haven't been following this.. Could you two post a link to the patch we're > talking about, and the explanation of how to add backwards compatibility to > it?
The latest patch is the following. Of course, this cannot be applied cleanly in HEAD. http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwHB==cjehme6jiuy-knutrx-k3ywqzieg1gpnb3ck6...@mail.gmail.com > Just by looking at the last few posts, this seems like a no brainer. The > impression I get is that there's a patch that's otherwise ready to be > applied, but Simon and some others want to have backwards-compatiblity added > to it first. And Simon has a plan on how to do it, and can do it in one day. > The obvious solution is that Simon posts the patch, with the > backwards-compatibility added. We can then discuss that, and assuming no > surprises there, commit it. And everyone lives happily ever after. Sounds reasonable. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
