Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> Yes, but the second attempt (linked above) addressed those concerns did
> it not? There wasn't a response one way or the other, and a lack of a
> negative response is generally a good thing on -patches.
For the last while, neither Bruce nor I have been paying much
attention to pgsql-patches; we were both busy with our own problems.
So the actual status of most recent patches is "unreviewed", not
"reviewed and not objected to".
I can't recall at the moment whether I looked at your second version of
this patch; it may be that my objection was to the first version. But
I'm not sure.
BTW, Bruce, where are you on catching up the patch backlog? I'm
hesitant to start elog() editing until that's pretty much done, since
it'll certainly cause merge problems for unapplied patches ...
regards, tom lane