Oleg Bartunov <o...@sai.msu.su> writes: > This is very disgraceful from my point of view and reflects real problem > in scheduling of CF. The patch was submitted Nov 23 2009, discussed and > reworked Nov 25. Long holidays in December-January, probably are reason why > there were no any movement on reviewing the patch.
There was a scheduling problem all right, which was that this patch *did not make* the deadline for the November CF. The fact that it got any review at all in November was more than expected under the CF process. And I remind you that we stated more than once that we didn't want major feature patches to show up only at the last CF. If it had come from anyone other than you and Teodor, there would have not been even a moment's consideration of letting it into 9.0. My own feeling about it is that I much preferred the original proposal of a contrib module with little or no change to core code. I don't want to be changing core code for this at this late hour. If it were only touching GIST I'd be willing to rely on your and Teodor's expertise in that module, but it's not. It whacks around the planner, it makes questionable changes in the operator class structure, and the last version I saw hadn't any documentation whatever. It's not committable on documentation grounds alone, even if everybody was satisfied about the code. How do you feel about going back to the original contrib module for now and resubmitting the builtin version for 9.1? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers