On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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 think that's fair. > 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. Please keep asking questions - it isn't necessarily obvious to me *what* isn't clear, because of my lack of perspective. That's a useful role. It occurs to me now that I ought to have found a place to document "cardinality violations" [1], but I didn't, for example. [1] http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-2274 -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers