Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1275.1373579975@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf
options
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input, >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you >> have committed it. > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see > others doing that. I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed. I do think it's sometimes polite to follow up that way to a bug submitter, or if the discussion was in some other non-hackers list, because then the audience might not be following commits. But I don't think it's particularly useful in pgsql-hackers threads. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: