Thread: patches in the pipe?
> Patch applied. Thanks.
I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted:
(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions
(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema
(3) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:42:50 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] guc variables flags explicitly initialisation
Could they be accepted/discussed/rejected as well?
patch (3) was somehow dismissed by Tom, so it may mean a final 'reject'.
As for (1) and (2), I answered all questions I received. (2) is somehow a
small bug fix. (1) adds a minor set of functions to access fields in
'aclitem'.
Thanks in advance,
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > > > I thought Peter didn't like it. > > He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question. > He may or may not agree, I don't know! > > > Would you repost and we can review it again. > > Ok. > > > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema > > > > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? > > Ok. > > > Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a > > problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or > > addressed, > > That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address" > issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider. I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something wrong. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > I thought Peter didn't like it. He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question. He may or may not agree, I don't know! > Would you repost and we can review it again. Ok. > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema > > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? Ok. > Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a > problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or > addressed, That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address" issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider. -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > Patch applied. Thanks. > > I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted: > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions I thought Peter didn't like it. Would you repost and we can review it again. > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? > (3) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:42:50 +0200 (CEST) > Subject: [PATCHES] guc variables flags explicitly initialisation That one is rejected because it is unnecessary. We have to trust standard C behavior. > Could they be accepted/discussed/rejected as well? > > patch (3) was somehow dismissed by Tom, so it may mean a final 'reject'. > As for (1) and (2), I answered all questions I received. (2) is somehow a > small bug fix. (1) adds a minor set of functions to access fields in > 'aclitem'. Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or addressed, I assume the patch shouldn't be applied. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Dear Bruce, > > > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > > Would you repost and we can review it again. > > > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > > > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema > > > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? Well, I did that but nothing has appeared on the list yet:-( I bounced them *again* but directly to you. > I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something > wrong. It seems I don't know how to post them maybe. -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Dear Bruce, > > > > > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > > > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > > > Would you repost and we can review it again. > > > > > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > > > > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema > > > > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? > > Well, I did that but nothing has appeared on the list yet:-( > I bounced them *again* but directly to you. Aded both to the queue. > > I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something > > wrong. > > It seems I don't know how to post them maybe. We will get it right soon. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073