Re: [PATCH v12] GSSAPI encryption support
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-04-08T18:39:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > While it seems like this particular patch (with myself as committer) > would meet the requirements stated by the RMT for an extension, having > considered it over the past day or so, I don't think we should make it a > policy to allow an extension when it involves a significant rework of > the patch, as is the case here. I agree. To be clear, those were intended as necessary but not necessarily sufficient reasons for extension. I agree that patches needing significant reworking are not good candidates for extensions. (But that is my feeling as an RMT member, not an RMT official policy upon which we have voted.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
GSSAPI encryption support
- b0b39f72b990 12.0 landed
-
Fix typo
- 57c932475504 9.6.0 cited