On 06/04/2015 03:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature freeze, but unfortunately this feels
like another discussion that we need to have now rather than later.
Yes, I wish you had raised these issues months ago when this was published.
That's the way the process is supposed to work.
I also wish that I managed to do that. As you know, I was working
overtime to get UPSERT into 9.5 during that period. Finding time to
review things is always difficult, and I which I could do more.
That's happened to me in the past. My view has generally been that in
that case I have missed my chance, and I need to live with what others
have done. That seems to me preferable to tearing up any pretense we
might have to be following a defined development process.
I should point out that I have already gone out of my way to accommodate
concerns you expressed extremely late about this set of features, and I
have lately indicated another area where we can adjust it to meet your
objections. Re-litigating this wholesale seems quite a different kettle
of fish, however.
Just in case it's not clear: I am not at all happy.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
