Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
