Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14
Date
Msg-id 4B7CA585.6000905@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CommitFest Status Summary - 2010-02-14  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>   
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>     
>>> * Fix large object support in pg_dump.  I think this is just waiting
>>> for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct.  I've been
>>> meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
>>> someone else would like to take a look?  This is an open item, so we
>>> should really try to deal with it.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Yeah, I think this is a "must fix for alpha" item.  Will look at it
>> tomorrow, god willin an the creek don't rise (or, given the weather
>> around here: the power stays on).
>>     
>
> I've applied that patch after some revisions.
>
> The only thing still showing as open in the CommitFest webpage is
> the last plperl patch.  I think that's actually done but not marked
> as committed; Andrew?
>
>             
>   

sorry. fixed.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: Large object dumps vs older pg_restore
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: NOTIFY/LISTEN on read-only slave?