On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes: >> I didn't add this patch to the commitfest, because it was just a point >> for discussion and not actually proposed for application. But It >> doesn't seem to have provoked much discussion either. > >> Should I go add this to the next commitfest? > >> I do see it listed as a resolved item in >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.4_Open_Items > >> But I can't find a commit that would resolve it, so does that mean the >> resolution was that the behavior was not new in 9.4 and so didn't need >> to be fixed for it? > > It looks to me like Robert added that item to the "open items" page, > but he put it at the bottom --- ie in the "already resolved items" > list: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/index.php?title=PostgreSQL_9.4_Open_Items&diff=22417&oldid=22380 > > Probably this was a mistake and it should have gone into the still-to-do > list.
Yeah. Oops. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
