On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 13 March 2014 13:17, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The bottom line here is that, as in previous years, there are a >> certain number of people who show up near the end of CF4 and are >> unhappy that some patch didn't get committed. Generally, they allege >> that (1) there's nothing wrong with the patch, (2) if there is >> something wrong with the patch, then it's the fault of the people >> objecting for not volunteering to fix it, and (3) that if the patch >> isn't committed despite the objections raised, it's going to be >> hideously bad for PostgreSQL. Josh Berkus chose to put his version of >> this rant on his blog: > > An interesting twist. > > 1) It's a simple patch and could be committed. Claiming otherwise > would not be accurate. > > 2) Nobody has said "it's the fault of the people objecting for not > volunteering to fix it" > > 3) As I explained twice already, *not* committing the patch does > *nothing* to prevent extension writers from making up their own > mechanism, so blocking the patch does nothing. Writing the extra code > required takes a while, but frankly its quicker than pointless > arguing. PostgreSQL will not explode if this patch is blocked, nor > will it explode if we allow unvalidated options. > > Hmm, so actually none of those points stick. > > Perhaps we're talking about another patch that you think should be > rejected? Not sure.
Well, I'm *trying* to talk about the fact that I think that any machinery that allows custom reloptions (or their equivalent) should also support mandatory validation. I think this subthread is somehow getting sidetracked from the meat of that conversation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers