Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have the patch almost ready in the described form, if there is any chance > it will make it into 8.2 I will clean it up and post it ASAP but Peter wrote > me that chances are close to zero and so I stopped working on it for now. If you'd mentioned it

Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Joachim Wieland is in the process of reworking the original feature patch > (resetting commented out parameters) in a much more compact form. But it > turns out that there are a couple of very tricky situations involving custom

Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 15. September 2006 20:32 schrieb Tom Lane: > I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any > more than Peter does. The refactoring might or might not be good at its > core, but as presented it is horrid. Joachim Wieland is in the process of reworking the origi

guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That does not mean that the patch is bad, and I certainly support the > feature change. But I can't efficiently review the patch. If someone > else wants to do it, go ahead. I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any mo