Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:59 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK. Well, I think that doing nothing is superior to this proposal,
>> for reasons similar to what Peter Eisentraut has already articulated.
>> And I think rather than blasting forward with your own preferred
>> alternative in the face of disagreement, you should be willing to
>> discuss other possible options. But if you're not willing to do that,
>> I can't make you.
> Peter seemed to not want to do this on the grounds that it isn't
> necessary at all, whereas you think that it doesn't go far enough. If
> there is a consensus against what Tom has said, it's a cacophonous one
> that cannot really be said to be in favor of anything.
The only thing that's really clear is that some senior committers don't
want to be bothered because they don't think there's a problem here that
justifies any additional expenditure of their time. Perhaps they are
right, because I'd expected some comments from non-committer developers
confirming that they see a problem, and the silence is deafening.
I'm inclined to commit some form of Naylor's tool improvement anyway,
because I have use for it; I remember times when I've renumbered OIDs
manually in patches, and it wasn't much fun. But I can't force a
process change if there's not consensus for it among the committers.
regards, tom lane
