2009/10/14 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp>: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Well, you need to find another way or risk getting the patch rejected >> > altogether. ?Those global variables are the weakest part of the whole >> > design, and I'm not going to commit a patch that destabilizes the entire >> > system for the sake of a debatable "requirement" of a contrib module. >> >> I am marking this patch as Returned with Feedback. I hope that it >> will be resubmitted for a future CommitFest, because I think this >> could be pretty interesting feature. > > Ok, I'll reconsider them and re-submit patches for the next commitfest. > Maybe I need to split the patch into EXPLAIN-part and contrib-part.
My (limited) experience is that it's usually better to get something incremental committed, even if it's not what you really want. You can always take another crack at the remaining issues later, but if the whole patch gets shot down then you are out of luck. In this case, I think that the auto_explain changes out to be part of the same patch as the core EXPLAIN changes, but if the pg_stat_statement stuff is severable it might make sense to push that off until later. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
