Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > Patch applied. Thanks. > > I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted: > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions
I thought Peter didn't like it. Would you repost and we can review it again. > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? > (3) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:42:50 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] guc variables flags explicitly initialisation That one is rejected because it is unnecessary. We have to trust standard C behavior. > Could they be accepted/discussed/rejected as well? > > patch (3) was somehow dismissed by Tom, so it may mean a final 'reject'. > As for (1) and (2), I answered all questions I received. (2) is somehow a > small bug fix. (1) adds a minor set of functions to access fields in > 'aclitem'. Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or addressed, I assume the patch shouldn't be applied. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org