On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 21.12.2012 21:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 21 December 2012 19:35, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original
>>>> developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Robert and I remember it differently.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I will ask for a vote now.
>>
>>
>> And what will you ask for a vote on? Why not spend that effort on
>> solving the problem? Why is it OK to waste so much time?
>>
>> Having already explained how to do this, I'll add backwards
>> compatibility within 1 day of the commit of the patch you claim was
>> blocked by this. I think it will take me about an hour and not be very
>> invasive, just to prove what a load of hot air is being produced here.
>
>
> I haven't been following this.. Could you two post a link to the patch we're
> talking about, and the explanation of how to add backwards compatibility to
> it?
The latest patch is the following. Of course, this cannot be applied
cleanly in HEAD.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwHB==cJehmE6JiuY-kNutRx-k3YWQziEg1gPNb3CK6N3A@mail.gmail.com
> Just by looking at the last few posts, this seems like a no brainer. The
> impression I get is that there's a patch that's otherwise ready to be
> applied, but Simon and some others want to have backwards-compatiblity added
> to it first. And Simon has a plan on how to do it, and can do it in one day.
> The obvious solution is that Simon posts the patch, with the
> backwards-compatibility added. We can then discuss that, and assuming no
> surprises there, commit it. And everyone lives happily ever after.
Sounds reasonable.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao