On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> At Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:05:29 +0900, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in >> <cab7npqsxcdm-5nfwdf8zukmw8j_ooe6zyrqyqasp0fjkxkd...@mail.gmail.com> >> > Regarding the patch, I >> > would tend to think that we should just reject it and try to cruft >> > something that could be more pluggable if there is really a need. >> > Thoughts? >> >> Honestly saying, I feel similarly with you:p I personally will do >> something like the following for the original objective. > > Are there other opinions? The -1 team is in majority at the end of this > thread..
So, marking the patch as rejected? Any objections? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
