"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait > accompli, or show any disrespect?
Well depending on the circumstances it could show the poster isn't interested in the judgement of the existing code authors. It can be hard to tell someone that their last 6 months of work was all in a direction that other developers would rather Postgres not head. However I think people are over-generalising if they think this is always true. Patches are often submitted by people who invite comment and are open to new ideas and reworking their approach. Whether the submission is as a fait accompli or as the beginning of a dialogue (imho a more productive dialogue than the usual hand-waving on -hackers) is determined more by the attitude of the presenter and willingness to take criticisms and make changes than it is by the mere fact that they've written code without prior approval. The flip side of all of this is that "the community" doesn't always engage when people do ask for feedback. I asked for comments on how best to proceed getting info down to the Sort node from a higher Limit node to implement the limit-sort optimization and didn't get any guidance. As a result I'm kind of stuck. I can proceed without feedback but I fear I would be, in fact, presenting the result as a fait accompli which would end up getting rejected if others were less comfortable with breaking the planner and executor abstractions (or if I choose not to do so and they decide the necessary abstractions are needless complexity). -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(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