Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > On Tuesday 22 August 2006 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> As I see it, we've effectively got a patch that was rejected once,
> >> and Bruce wants to apply it anyway because no replacement has been
> >> forthcoming.
>
> > Well, unless someone is going to commit to doing it the other way, it seems
> > the guy who actually codes something offers a better solution than
> > handwaving... people have also had plenty of time to come up with a
> > replacement if that's what they really wanted.
>
> The patch submitter has neither provided an updated patch nor defended
> his original submission as being the right thing. If he doesn't take it
> seriously enough to have done any followup, why should the rest of us?
>
> At the moment, with the online-index and updatable-views patches both
> pretty seriously broken, and no sign that the bitmap-index people are
> awake at all, I might take it on myself to fix this one instead of those
> others. But is that what I should be spending my time on in the waning
> days of the 8.2 freeze cycle? Speak now or hold your peace.
Your analysis is accurate. You can spend your time on whatever _you_
think is important. If someone wants to take on COPY VIEW and do all
the work to make it 100%, then they are welcome to do it, but if you
don't feel it is worth it, you can just leave it. If it isn't 100% by
the time we start beta, it is kept for a later release.
Alvaro has already indicated some problems with the patch (the objection
email is in the patches queue), so it is up to someone to correct at
least that, and if other objections are found, they have to correct
those too before 8.2 beta starts.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
