Tom Lane said:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>> Weeeeell, I guess I'm against it based on the rules of feature freeze,
>> even though it would be really useful for me :(
>
> It would have been a lot easier to approve it if it'd arrived on June
> 30 rather than July 6 :-(. However, I do believe that David originally
> submitted a slightly-too-late version of this in the previous release
> cycle, so maybe we could cut him a little slack and pretend this is a
> mistakenly-forgotten patch that we held over from 7.4.
>
> Note I haven't actually *read* the patch and so take no position on
> whether it does what it claims to. But if someone else will read/test
> it and give it a favorable report, then I'm inclined to approve it. I'm
> quite sure we'd agreed in principle to allow multiple -t values. (A
> negative -T switch is another matter --- that part maybe needs
> more discussion.)
>
I entirely agree. Feature freeze has been said to be slightly porous, and
this is a change with relatively low impact/risk and significant benefit.
Let's not be overly rulebound.
cheers
andrew
