Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9944632768 for ; Wed, 27 May 2009 20:24:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13951-07 for ; Wed, 27 May 2009 20:24:01 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091656325B6 for ; Wed, 27 May 2009 20:24:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n4RNO4eE020614; Wed, 27 May 2009 19:24:04 -0400 (EDT) To: Joe Conway cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" Subject: Re: dblink patches for comment In-reply-to: <4A1C9C8C.6030405@joeconway.com> References: <4A1C9C8C.6030405@joeconway.com> Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway message dated "Tue, 26 May 2009 18:51:08 -0700" Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:24:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20613.1243466644@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.121 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200905/1157 X-Sequence-Number: 138699 Joe Conway writes: > The attached addresses items#2 and 3 as listed by Bruce here: > http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgsql/joe > I think it is consistent with the discussions we had a PGCon last week. > Any objections to me committing this for 8.4? It's hard to review it without any docs that say what it's supposed to do. (And you'd need to patch the docs anyway, eh?) > On a side note, should I try to address items #1 & #4 for 8.4 as well? > Perhaps #4 yes since it is arguably a bug fix, but no to #1? Yeah, my feeling too. #1 is a new feature that was submitted too late for 8.4. I wouldn't have argued if you'd committed it anyway during the commitfest, but it's definitely too late now. But #4 seems like a bugfix. regards, tom lane