patches in the pipe?

Fabien COELHO wrote:

Patch applied. Thanks.

I have 3 others somehow minor patches that are being submitted:

(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions

I thought Peter didn't like it. Would you repost and we can review it
again.

(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema

I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?

(3) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:42:50 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] guc variables flags explicitly initialisation

That one is rejected because it is unnecessary. We have to trust
standard C behavior.

Could they be accepted/discussed/rejected as well?

patch (3) was somehow dismissed by Tom, so it may mean a final 'reject'.
As for (1) and (2), I answered all questions I received. (2) is somehow a
small bug fix. (1) adds a minor set of functions to access fields in
'aclitem'.

Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a
problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or
addressed, I assume the patch shouldn't be applied.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions

I thought Peter didn't like it.

He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question.
He may or may not agree, I don't know!

Would you repost and we can review it again.

Ok.

(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema

I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?

Ok.

Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a
problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or
addressed,

That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address"
issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider.

--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr

Fabien COELHO wrote:

(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions

I thought Peter didn't like it.

He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question.
He may or may not agree, I don't know!

Would you repost and we can review it again.

Ok.

(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema

I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?

Ok.

Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a
problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or
addressed,

That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address"
issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider.

I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something
wrong.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Dear Bruce,

(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions

Would you repost and we can review it again.

(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema

I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?

Well, I did that but nothing has appeared on the list yet:-(
I bounced them *again* but directly to you.

I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something
wrong.

It seems I don't know how to post them maybe.

--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr

Fabien COELHO wrote:

Dear Bruce,

(1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions

Would you repost and we can review it again.

(2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema

I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?

Well, I did that but nothing has appeared on the list yet:-(
I bounced them *again* but directly to you.

Aded both to the queue.

I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something
wrong.

It seems I don't know how to post them maybe.

We will get it right soon. :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073