On 30 September 2014 19:49, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 09/30/2014 11:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> > For example, this patch for UPSERT doesn't support updatable views. >>> > But I can't see anyone that didn't read the patch would know that. >> By reading the CREATE VIEW docs. Maybe there could stand to be a >> compatibility note in the main INSERT command, but I didn't want to do >> that as long as things were up in the air. It might be the case that >> we figure out good behavior for updatable views. > > All of these things sound like good ideas for documentation > improvements, but hardly anything which should block the patch. It has > documentation, more than we'd require for a lot of other patches, and > it's not like the 9.5 release is next month.
We won't get consensus simply by saying "Would you like a fast upsert feature?" because everyone says Yes to that. A clear description of the feature being added is necessary to agree its acceptance. When we implement a SQL Standard feature, we can just look in the standard to see how it should work and compare. When we go off-piste, we need more info to make sure we know what we are getting as well as why we are not getting something from the Standard. I have not suggested I would block the patch because it doesn't have docs. I have pointed out that the lack of consensus about the patch is because nobody knows what it contains, which others agreed with. My request was, and is, a proposed mechanism to *unblock* a very obviously stalled patch. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
