Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM we had specifically rejected the prior version of this (the one
> from Ben Reed) for some reason, which I do not recall at the moment.
> If the archives were up, I'd go look, but in the meantime please do
> not apply.
I had thought it was only because the "marking something as a module or
not" thing was a big change and needed more review, but honestly I don't
recall either, and I was having trouble finding the previous discussion
in list archives.
--
Benjamin Reed, a.k.a. RangerRick
ranger@befunk.com / http://ranger.befunk.com/