Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 05:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >David Steele wrote:
> >>The attached patch implements audit logging for PostgreSQL as an
> >>extension. I believe I have addressed the concerns that were raised at
> >>the end of the 9.5 development cycle.
> >
> >This patch got no feedback at all during the commitfest. I think there
> >is some interest on auditing capabilities so it's annoying and
> >surprising that this has no movement at all.
> >
> >If the lack of activity means lack of interest, please can we all keep
> >what we've been doing in this thread, which is to ignore it, so that we
> >can just mark this as rejected. Otherwise, please chime in. I'm giving
> >this patch some more time by moving it to next commitfest instead.
>
> From my perspective, lack of activity means since it doesn't have a
> technical requirement to be in -core, it doesn't need to be.
Well, from mine it doesn't mean that. We kind of assume that "no answer
means yes"; but here what it really means is that nobody had time to
look at it and think about it, so it stalled (and so have many other
patches BTW). But if you or others think that this patch belongs into
PGXN, it's good to have that opinion in an email, so that the author can
think about your perspective and agree or disagree with it. Just by
expression that opinion, a thousand other hackers might vote +1 or -1 on
your proposal -- either way a clear sign. Silence doesn't let us move
forward, and we punt the patch to the next CF and let inertia continue.
That's not good.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
