On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Done so. Alea jacta est, as one guy 2000 years ago would have said. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
