On 4 September 2016 at 04:50, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Everything else looks in good order. >>> >>> Committed. Thanks. >> >> Thanks for the commit!
No problem, it was a good patch. Since I moan to others about lack of docs, tests etc, I'll do the same here and compliment you on providing a well rounded patch with docs, tests that does what it says in a clean way. > By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch adding > the parsing context in case of an error as wanted upthread. Perhaps > that's not worth adding now as there is the GUC refactoring > potentially happening for the recovery parameters, so I don't mind > much. Just that's worth mentioning. Hmm, that was unintentional. If something stalls the recovery parameter project, please remind me to commit that as well. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
