On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Hmm, I see this needs to be rebased over Tom's latest changes, but the >> conflict I got was in syscache.h, rather than syscache.c. Not sure if >> that's what you were going for or if there's another issue. Updated >> patch attached. > > I'm planning to go look at Naylor's bki refactoring patch now. Assuming > there isn't any showstopper problem with that, do you object to it > getting committed first? Either order is going to create a merge > problem, but it seems like we'd be best off to get Naylor's patch in > so people can resync affected patches before the January commitfest > starts.
My only objection to that is that if we're going to add attoptions also, I'd like to get this committed first before I start working on that, and we're running short on time. If you can commit his patch in the next day or two, then I am fine with rebasing mine afterwards, but if it needs more work than that then I would prefer to commit mine so I can move on. Is that reasonable? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
