Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax
Date
Msg-id 2720923.1648049571@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax  (Gareth Palmer <gareth@internetnz.net.nz>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>)
List pgsql-hackers
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> You have to either include the pre-requisite patches as 0001, and your patch as
> 0002 (as I'm doing now), or name your patch something other than *.diff or
> *.patch, so cfbot doesn't think it's a new version of the patch to be tested.

This patch has been basically ignored for a full two years now.
(Remarkably, it's still passing in the cfbot.)

I have to think that that means there's just not enough interest
to justify committing it.  Should we mark it rejected and move on?
If not, what needs to happen to get it unstuck?

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: New Object Access Type hooks
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints