On 10/8/2007 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Marko Kreen wrote:
>>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
>>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
>>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
>>> their own opinion.
>
>> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
>> really the ones supposed to decide on this.
>
> It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should
> have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be private.
That blame certainly belongs to me and I apologize for jumping that and
adding it to contrib without any -hackers discussion.
It is definitely a timing issue since I write this very email from JFK,
boarding a flight to Hong Kong in less than an hour and will be mostly
offline for the rest of the week.
I agree with the technical issue Tom brought up. Slony itself doesn't
rely on strtoull() either and this slipped through. I will see that I
fix that by using Slony's int64 scanning code. I can work on it during
the flight and commit the fix when I arrive in the hotel.
To Magnus: It certainly would have been cool to have this in core, but
two weeks ago we didn't know if we can get the code into shape for that
before BETA (as it is right now I would say it still isn't). So we shot
for the next best target, which was contrib, where post BETA changes
aren't as critical.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
