On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You're >> essentially leveraging a commit bit that you haven't used in more than >> three years to try to push a patch that was submitted months too late > > I'm not leveraging anything any I'm not going to push something unless > people are on board. That's *why* I sent that message. And I started > the email by saying I was going to go work on patches from the > commitfest first.
I said that a lot more harshly than I should have, and I impugned you unfairly. Sorry. I'm going to try again: I don't doubt that your desire to move this patch forward is motivated by anything under than the best of possible motivations. However, whether you intend it or not, trying to move this patch toward a 9.4 commit, or even trying to get people to express an opinion on whether this is suitable for a 9.4 commit, is inevitably going to cause senior reviewers who think they might have concerns about it to need to spend time on it. Inevitably, that time will come at the expense of patches that were timely submitted, and that is unfair to the people who submitted those patches. Of course, if you want to review this patch now, I'm 100% OK with that. If you want to review other pending patches, for 9.4 or 9.5, I think that's great, too. But if there's talk of committing this patch, I think that seems both quite a bit too late (relative to the timing of CF4) and quite a bit too early (relative to the amount of review and testing done thus far). Thanks, -- 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