Tom Lane said: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Weeeeell, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze, >> even though it would be really useful for me :( > > It would have been a lot easier to approve it if it'd arrived on June > 30 rather than July 6 :-(. However, I do believe that David originally > submitted a slightly-too-late version of this in the previous release > cycle, so maybe we could cut him a little slack and pretend this is a > mistakenly-forgotten patch that we held over from 7.4. > > Note I haven't actually *read* the patch and so take no position on > whether it does what it claims to. But if someone else will read/test > it and give it a favorable report, then I'm inclined to approve it. I'm > quite sure we'd agreed in principle to allow multiple -t values. (A > negative -T switch is another matter --- that part maybe needs > more discussion.) >
I entirely agree. Feature freeze has been said to be slightly porous, and this is a change with relatively low impact/risk and significant benefit. Let's not be overly rulebound. cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
