Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> > Yes, I see this as well.
>
> By my count the breakage from the DOMAIN patch is:
> 1 shift/reduce conflict in gram.y
> 3 gcc warnings (at least one being obviously a bug)
> 1 core dump during regression tests
>
> Bruce, what in the heck were you doing applying this patch? You knew
> darn well it had not been meaningfully reviewed. Not bothering to check
> for compile problems or regression failures before applying is
> unforgivably sloppy work. I don't blame the submitter; I blame you,
> who should have known better.
You can blame me all you want. That was in the queue, and no one
objected, so I did my best. If you don't want to forgive me, don't.
In fact, this whole indignation thing is starting to tire me. This is an
open-source project. People do the best they can. Just make the best of
it and move on.
If this is the worst that has happened from my applying all those back
patches, I am happy.
I do compile tests regularly, and regression tests periodically. I do
not do it for every patch but more for every batch of patches.
Now, if people would like the patch backed out, it can be easily done.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
