On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 02.10.2012 21:20, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> but its not high on my radar
>>>
>>> right now unless you can explain why it should be higher.
>>
>>
>> It may not be high, but I'm just worried that we are likely to forget to
>> apply that change into HEAD if we postpone it furthermore.
>
>
> Ping? I haven't been paying much attention to this, but please commit the
> 9.2 fix to HEAD. This just caused a small merge conflict when I tried to
> backport (or rather, forward-port) a patch. We do more changes to HEAD
> later.
Sorry for the late. I attached the patch for HEAD. Since I've not understood
completely the recent change related to handling of the timeline yet, the patch
might treat with the timeline wrongly. I'm not sure if this patch has something
to do with the recent change, though. I appreciate it if you review carefully
the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao