Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMg7-cYR3nJyMLCV49y_CW13qJOwg_DnHt8dhTTmySvVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)  (Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Removing all the other xposted lists -- don't do that!]
>
> Okay, sorry.  I thought since the reply was pg-specific it would cut down noise.

I'm sorry I was unclear. I meant, I was removing all the others from
my reply and was saying not to cross-post like that in the first
place. I see you removed them in your response too which is good but I
missed that and responded to the previous message.

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Browder
Date:
Subject: Re: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding