On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 09:01:05PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> 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.
This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item now needs a permanent owner. Would any other
committer like to take ownership? If this role interests you, please read
this thread and the policy linked above, then send an initial status update
bearing a date for your subsequent status update. If the item does not have a
permanent owner by 2016-07-24 02:00 UTC, I will resolve the item by reverting
commit 848ef42 and followups.
Thanks,
nm