On 02/05/13 02:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz> writes:
>> I am concerned that the deafening lack of any replies to my original
>> message is a result of folk glancing at your original quick reply and
>> thinking... incomplete problem spec...ignore... when that is not that
>> case - yes I should have muttered "9.2" in the original email, but we
>> have covered that now.
> No, I think it's more that we're trying to get to beta, and so anything
> that looks like new development is getting shuffled to folks' "to
> look at later" queues. The proposed patch is IMO a complete nonstarter
> anyway; but I'm not sure what a less bogus solution would look like.
>
Yeah, I did think that beta might be consuming everyone's attention (of
course immediately *after* sending the email)!
And yes, the patch was merely to illustrate the problem rather than any
serious attempt at a solution.
Regards
Mark
