On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:26:36PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>>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. > > To further this, I didn't even know it was an issue. If it was only half > an hour and it needed to be done, why wasn't it put out there? > > Thanks goes to Bruce for fixing it but I didn't know it was an issue, I > have 5 C developers, if any of them could have done it -- then some > communication is needed and I would have allocated someone to it. > > I am sure that is the case with others as well. > > I am not saying it is anyone's responsibility to speak up, but I can say > had I known some help was needed (especially something so trivial) I > would have gladly donated some time.
There's been talk in the past of having some kind of system that automatically attempts to build things that are in the patch queue, both as an initial sanity-check and as a means to detect when something bit-rots... perhaps it's becoming worthwhile to set that up. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
