OK, with two people now concerned, patch reverted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I've always found it easier to review uncommitted patches than committed
> > ones anyway. When you're playing catch-up by reviewing a committed
> > patch, you have to deal with three states of the code rather than two
> > (pre-patch, post-patch, your own mods). That gets rapidly worse if the
> > patch has been in there awhile and other changes go in on top of it.
> > Plus, once other changes accumulate on top, it becomes extremely painful
> > to revert if the conclusion is that the patch is completely broken.
> > (A conclusion that I don't think is at all unlikely with respect to
> > this patch.)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Easy or not this strikes me as good policy. And nothing is urgent quite
> yet - we still have another 18 days to the end of the month, which is
> the stated deadline for getting patches reviewed and committed.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
