On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 09:36:41PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 8/3/21 8:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > How would this be different from the CFM just rejecting patches? It does not
> > > matter if there's an explicit number of patches that we allow to be moved to
> > > the next CF - someone still needs to make the decision, and I agree with Tom
> > > it probably should not be CFM's job.
> >
> > My experience with the query id patch is that it can't be rejected
> > because everyone wants it, but it needs work to get it in a state that
> > everyone approves of. Sometimes it is impossible for the patch author
> > to figure that out, and I needed Álvaro Herrera's help on the query id
> > patch, so even I wasn't able to figure it out alone.
> >
>
> Yeah, and I'm sure this applies to various other patches too - we want the
> feature, but it requires more work, and it may not be clear how much and
> what's the path forward.
>
> But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for CFM to assess this, or
> whether someone else should make this decision?
>
> IMHO asking the CFM to do this would be a tremendous burden - properly
> assessing 50+ patches is a lot of work, and probably requires a fairly
> experienced hacker ...
I don't think the CFM can do this --- I think it has to be a team
effort, as was the query id patch.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
