Hi Chris;
I think there may be some misunderstandings here :-)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Chris Bennett <
ch...@bennettconstruction.biz> wrote:
> 4 and 5 sound good, but also a bit complex for someone wanting to
> contribute to get their mind wrapped around it. I think some good
> document
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM, John Locke wrote:
> HI, Chris,
>
> I haven't had a chance to try out much of 1.3 since the recent
> milestones--I look forward to checking out the progress and see how it's
> going! And also to contributing more sometime soon. Some of the changes
> below would mak
Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> While the 1.3 framework is a great improvement on the 1.2 framework, I
> have noticed a number of things that I think should be changed, as
> well as a few new opportunities to simplify things in 1.4.
>
> First, I would like to propose that 1.4 be targetted at
HI, Chris,
I haven't had a chance to try out much of 1.3 since the recent
milestones--I look forward to checking out the progress and see how it's
going! And also to contributing more sometime soon. Some of the changes
below would make it easier for me to contribute, others harder...
O
Hi all;
While the 1.3 framework is a great improvement on the 1.2 framework, I have
noticed a number of things that I think should be changed, as well as a few
new opportunities to simplify things in 1.4.
First, I would like to propose that 1.4 be targetted at PostgreSQL 8.4 or
higher, and requir
