On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Edward Muller <edward@heroku.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking for comments ...
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/be937d3a7a5323c73b6e
>>
>> We'd like to get this, or something like it, into 9.2
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Edward Muller <edward@heroku.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking for comments ...
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/be937d3a7a5323c73b6e
>>
>> We'd like to get this, or something like it, into 9.2
As it would turn out, a patch for this has already been submitted:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-10/msg00001.php
There was some wrangling on whether it needs to be extended to be
useful, but for our purposes the formulation already posted already
captures vital value for us, and in that form appears to be fairly
uncontentious. I have moved it to the current commitfest, with a
comment linking to the 'please revive this patch' thread whereby a
second glance at what to do about this was conducted. The link
follows:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=541
> If you want it to be seriously considered, you should post the patch
> to this list, which makes it part of the permanent archives and
> indicates your willingness to place the code under the PostgreSQL
> license.
Although technical mailing lists are not primarily a place of
reflection and sensitivity, I do think that wording addressed to a new
participant could have been kinder. Perhaps, "Unfortunately we cannot
accept or even read your patch because of licensing concerns, would
you please follow the following patch submission guidelines?" <link>.
--
fdr
