Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > 1. 15 years of the same argument (current source: pg_audit)
>
> The argument about pg_audit has little to do with contrib. It is
> primarily about code quality, and secondarily about whether one
> committer can go do something unliterally when a long list of other
> committers and contributors have expressed doubts about it.
I would certainly welcome any further review or comments regarding the
code quality of pg_audit from anyone interested in the capability. I do
not agree that the code quality is significantly below that of other
modules or core. There were design restrictions due to it being an
extension which quite a few people had questions and concerns about,
which I addressed through the discussions on the list.
Further, pg_audit was originally presented by 2ndQ, worked on by
multiple major contributors and committers, and had multiple committers
expressing interest in committing it during the push to close out the
final CF for 9.5. I understand that I've been the one who has primairly
been spending time discussing it on the lists, but I was also one of the
biggest nay-sayers of it over the summer last year. What changed my
opinion of it? The point made by other committers that the upgrade
concerns could be addressed and the strong interest from users in the
capability.
Painting it as the unilateral actions of one committer is uncharitable,
at best.
Thanks!
Stephen
