Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... The GUC comment/default patch had tons of > > emails, but no other committers got involved to review or commit the > > patch. Peter, who knows GUC well, looked at it, but said he didn't > > review it enough. > > Peter has made it pretty clear that he didn't care for the > refactorization aspect of that patch.
Peter asked why it was done, a good answer was given, and Peter did not reply. > > I just spent 1/2 hour fixing the multi-value UPDATE > > patch for the code drift caused by UPDATE/RETURNING. The patch is a > > simple grammar macro. Any coder could have taken that, reviewed it, and > > applied it, but no one did. > > Perhaps that's because nobody but you wanted it to go in. We got tons of people who wanted that. > Some amount of the issue here is that people won't work on patches they > don't approve of; that's certainly the case for me. I have more than > enough to do working on patches I do think should go in, and I get tired > of having to repeatedly object to the same bad patch. Do you remember > Sturgeon's Law? It applies to patches too. Sure, you have to want the patch to be in to be motivated to work on it. I think I am more willing to work with imperfection. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
