On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:09:59PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 06:48:08PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> >> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> >> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
> >
> > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due
> > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
> > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
> > 2016-07-20 03:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
> > ownership without further notice.
> >
> > [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
>
> As far as I can see, to do this the way that Andres and Amit
> suggest involves tying in to indexam.c and other code in incredibly
> ugly ways. I think it is entirely the wrong way to go, as I can't
> find a way to make it look remotely sane. The question is whether
> I should do it the way that I think is sane, or whether someone
> else wants to show me what I'm missing by producing at least a
> rough patch along these lines.
This does not qualify as a status update, because it does not include a date
for your subsequent status update.