On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 06:48:08PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly > >> send > >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent > >> status > >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: > >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com > > > > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past > > due > > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by > > 2016-07-20 03:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team > > ownership without further notice. > > > > [1] > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com > > As far as I can see, to do this the way that Andres and Amit > suggest involves tying in to indexam.c and other code in incredibly > ugly ways. I think it is entirely the wrong way to go, as I can't > find a way to make it look remotely sane. The question is whether > I should do it the way that I think is sane, or whether someone > else wants to show me what I'm missing by producing at least a > rough patch along these lines.
This does not qualify as a status update, because it does not include a date for your subsequent status update. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
