Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> > Yes, but the second attempt (linked above) addressed those concerns did
> > it not? There wasn't a response one way or the other, and a lack of a
> > negative response is generally a good thing on -patches.
>
> For the last while, neither Bruce nor I have been paying much
> attention to pgsql-patches; we were both busy with our own problems.
> So the actual status of most recent patches is "unreviewed", not
> "reviewed and not objected to".
>
> I can't recall at the moment whether I looked at your second version of
> this patch; it may be that my objection was to the first version. But
> I'm not sure.
>
> BTW, Bruce, where are you on catching up the patch backlog? I'm
> hesitant to start elog() editing until that's pretty much done, since
> it'll certainly cause merge problems for unapplied patches ...
I will be finished today, then I will call you to have you eyeball the
queue.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
