Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > >> Tom Lane escribi?: > >>> That would be an argument for sticking this in the next CF, not for > >>> applying it now --- it was submitted after the close of the last CF no? > > > >> Sep. 29 2009? > > > > Oh, I was thinking it had just come in recently, but looking back you're > > right. ?It did slip through the cracks. > > > > However, has the patch actually been reviewed? ?pg_dump is a piece of > > code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong, > > and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out > > in particular cases. > > It's a fairly trivial patch. I took a quick look at it. It needs > more than that, but I think not too much more. I think it would be > less effort for someone to review it and make a decision than it would > be to keep it as an open item for the next 6 months.
Agreed, applied, and TODO updated. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
