On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08:23PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we release it, then we have to > > > instead put information about the new version of the functions into the > > old > > > structure I think. > > > > > > So I think it's an open issue. > > > > Works for me... > > > > [This is a generic notification.] > > > > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Magnus, > > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this > > open > > item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose > > responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be discovered > > at > > any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of the > > ship > > date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please > > present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days of > > this > > message. Thanks. > > > > I won't have time to do the bigger rewrite/reordeirng by then, but I can > certainly commit to having the smaller updates done to cover the new > functionality in less than a week. If nothing else, that'll be something > for me to do on the flight over to pgconf.us.
Thanks for that plan; it sounds good. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
