On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>> That would be an argument for sticking this in the next CF, not for
>>> applying it now --- it was submitted after the close of the last CF no?
>
>> Sep. 29 2009?
>
> Oh, I was thinking it had just come in recently, but looking back you're
> right. It did slip through the cracks.
>
> However, has the patch actually been reviewed? pg_dump is a piece of
> code where it is notoriously easy for novices to do things wrong,
> and this is especially true for adding output that should only come out
> in particular cases.
It's a fairly trivial patch. I took a quick look at it. It needs
more than that, but I think not too much more. I think it would be
less effort for someone to review it and make a decision than it would
be to keep it as an open item for the next 6 months. But that's just
MHO: if the consensus is to postpone it, then let's just do that and
move on.
...Robert
