David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:50:25AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but I have far too much work in front of me reviewing
>> patches that have a chance of getting into 8.4. I do not have time
>> to do pre-implementation research for a patch that doesn't.
> You took on the responsibility by rejecting the working patch and
> saying how it should be implemented.
"Working"? What you submitted was a self-acknowledged crude hack,
which was shortly shown to have several major problems; a quick look
in the archives suggests* fails on subplans, and possibly other things that ruleutils.c doesn't support well* not at
allclear what to do with aliased column names* requires custom support in each PL, only one of which was actually
implemented
and there are probably more (I didn't reread the whole thread). The
fact that I suggested a possible avenue to fixing some of those problems
doesn't make it my responsibility to fix them ... especially not if I
don't particularly approve of the hack in the first place. Even with
all this fixed it would be a dead-end feature, but we'd be stuck with
supporting it forever. You should be happy that I was willing to hold
still for accepting the patch if the problems got fixed.
regards, tom lane
