Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted:
>
> (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
> Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions
I thought Peter didn't like it. Would you repost and we can review it
again.
>
> (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
> Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema
I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?
> (3) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:42:50 +0200 (CEST)
> Subject: [PATCHES] guc variables flags explicitly initialisation
That one is rejected because it is unnecessary. We have to trust
standard C behavior.
> Could they be accepted/discussed/rejected as well?
>
> patch (3) was somehow dismissed by Tom, so it may mean a final 'reject'.
> As for (1) and (2), I answered all questions I received. (2) is somehow a
> small bug fix. (1) adds a minor set of functions to access fields in
> 'aclitem'.
Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a
problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or
addressed, I assume the patch shouldn't be applied.
--
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
