On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > However if it were posted as part of patchset with a subject of "[PATCH] > gram.y: add EXCLUDED pseudo-alias to bison grammar" then this may pique > my interest enough to review the changes to the grammar rules, with the > barrier for entry reduced to understanding just the PostgreSQL-specific > parts.
Meh. Such a patch couldn't possibly compile or work without modifying other parts of the tree. And I'm emphatically opposed to splitting a commit that would have taken the tree from one working state to another working state into a series of patches that would have taken it from a working state through various non-working states and eventually another working state. Furthermore, if you really want to review that specific part of the patch, just look for what changed in gram.y, perhaps by applying the patch and doing git diff src/backend/parser/gram.y. This is really not hard. I certainly agree that there are cases where patch authors could and should put more work into decomposing large patches into bite-sized chunks. But I don't think that's always possible, and I don't think that, for example, applying BRIN in N separate pieces would have been a step forward. It's one feature, not many. -- 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