Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch
> > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just applying this for
> > v10, or
On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Attached is a proposed patch...
>
> I've taken a look through this and generally agree with it.
Thanks for looking at this.
> the bits inside ... tags should be
>
Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 5 August 2017 at 10:03, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Patch applies cleanly, make html ok, new table looks good to me.
>
> So I started looking at this patch, but before even considering the
> new table proposed, I
On 5 August 2017 at 10:03, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Patch applies cleanly, make html ok, new table looks good to me.
>
So I started looking at this patch, but before even considering the
new table proposed, I think there are multiple issues that need to be
resolved with the
Hello Rod,
Patch applies cleanly, make html ok, new table looks good to me.
I've turned it "Ready for Committer".
Thanks!
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Rod,
>
> This version of the table attempts to stipulate which section of the
>> process the rule applies to.
>>
>
> The table should be referenced from the description, something like "Table
> xxx summarizes
Hello Rod,
This version of the table attempts to stipulate which section of the
process the rule applies to.
A few comments about this patch. It applies cleanly, make html is ok.
It adds a summary table which shows for each case what happens. Although
the information can be guessed/infered
Of course, better thoughts appear immediately after hitting the send button.
This version of the table attempts to stipulate which section of the
process the rule applies to.
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Rod Taylor wrote:
> I think the biggest piece missing is