Le 28/01/2010 07:32, Joe Conway a écrit :
> On 01/26/2010 02:55 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2010 19:43, Joe Conway a écrit :
>>> On 01/25/2010 03:21 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
I didn't put any documentation before knowing which one will be choosen.
So we still need to work
On 01/26/2010 02:55 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 26/01/2010 19:43, Joe Conway a écrit :
>> On 01/25/2010 03:21 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>>> I didn't put any documentation before knowing which one will be choosen.
>>> So we still need to work on the manual.
>>
>> Please send the documentati
Le 26/01/2010 19:43, Joe Conway a écrit :
> On 01/25/2010 03:21 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> I didn't put any documentation before knowing which one will be choosen.
>> So we still need to work on the manual.
>
> Please send the documentation as a separate patch. Once I have that I
> will commi
On 01/25/2010 03:21 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I didn't put any documentation before knowing which one will be choosen.
> So we still need to work on the manual.
Please send the documentation as a separate patch. Once I have that I
will commit the posted patch, barring any objections in the me
Le 26/01/2010 00:04, Joe Conway a écrit :
> I'm reviewing the patch posted here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01579.php
> for this commitfest item:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=259
>
First, thanks for reviewing my patch.
> Patch attach
I'm reviewing the patch posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg01579.php
for this commitfest item:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=259
Patch attached - a few minor changes:
-
1) Updated to apply cleanly ag
