Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>>
>>> I'll submit the proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches again, because some of previous
>>> messages are filtered due to attachment and I cannot provide whole of patches yet.
>> This is actually what you should have done from the beginning. And it only
>> should have gone to the pgsql-hackers list, which is the only one I'm replying
>> to. Your patches are at this point a proposal, as you say in the subject, and
>> those go to the pgsql-hackers list with the minimum of files necessary to
>> support them. pgsql-patches is generally aimed at patches that have already
>> been discussed on the hackers list, ones that are basically ready to apply to
>> the source code.
>
> Some people shout any time you send patches to -hackers. For the -patches is
> there mainly to catch large attachments regardless of their maturity.
>
> But it's true that it's best to post a plan and have discussion prior to
> developing big patches.
Yes, it might be a better way to develop this feature on reflection.
I'm sorry that I could not submit a proposal by the feature freeze
date of v8.3 unfortunately, so the development of SE-PostgreSQL
(based on v8.2) is overlapped with development cycle of v8.3.
I don't want to repeat same thing twice, so these series of patches
are submitted fot v8.4 development cycle.
The first two of them ([1/4] and [2/4]) are significant part of
SE-PostgreSQL. We can discuss rest of them later. They contains
utility extension and security policy.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
