Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch > > which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion > > be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original > > feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the > > feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version. > > Um, if they're not reading -patches, why would they think the feature > had been accepted, or even submitted? In any case, when we reject a > patch, it's not usually a conclusion that will get reversed just because > more people are involved in the discussion. The people who might > actually be able to *fix* the patch are probably reading -patches.
But there may be people in -hackers who can *convince* those on -patches that the patch should get fixed and not dropped (e.g. the case at hand). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
