On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > You haven't even given a good reason to make these changes. > > Simplicity.
You used that argument in January to explain why the coupling should be reduced and now the same argument to put it back again. > > We don't have time to make this change and then shake out everything > > else that will break as a result. Are you suggesting that you will make > > these changes and then follow up on all other breakages? Forcing this > > request seems like a great way to cancel this patch, since it will be > > marked as "author refused to make change". > > I'm not suggesting anything to be canceled. I simply think these are > changes that should be made. I wish you could make them, because that > means less work for me. But if you're not willing to, I can pick it up > myself. When you review my code, you make many useful suggestions and I am very thankful. Testing can't find out some of those things. My feeling is that you are now concentrating on things that are optional, yet will have a huge potential for negative impact. If I could please draw your review efforts to other parts of the patch, I would be happy to return to these parts later. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
