On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi> writes: >> On 2011-02-24 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Oh, did we decide to do it that way? OK with me, but the submitted docs >>> are woefully inadequate on the point. This behavior is going to have to >>> be explained extremely clearly (and even so, I bet we'll get bug reports >>> about it :-(). > >> I'm ready to put more effort into the documentation if the patch is >> going in, but I really don't want to waste my time just to hear that the >> patch is not going to be in 9.1. Does this sound acceptable? > > I've found some things I don't like about it, but the only part that > seems far short of being committable is the documentation.
Tom/Alvaro, have the two of you hammered out who is going to finish this one off? I *believe* Alvaro told me on IM that he was leaving this one for Tom. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
