On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> That's another way of saying "the patch is not anywhere close to being done".
>
> My patch is materially incomplete. Certainly we may see that as grounds
> for rejection, which I would not and could not argue with. It is a
> popular feature, so I submitted anyway.
I wouldn't say rejection per se - but I would definitely say push it out to 9.2.
> When I said Noah's patch was trivial, I was referring to the amount of
> work expended on it so far; no insult intended. I think the amount of
> code to finish either is fairly low as well.
>
> If we wish to continue in this release then we must decide how. What I
> was trying to indicate in my earlier comments was that my focus is on
> achieving the required functionality in this release, or put another
> way, I would accept Noah's patch rather than end with nothing.
>
> The main requirement, as I see it, is error checking. We need to do the
> same checking however we do it; neither patch currently does it.
>
> If Noah's patch had error checking, then it would at least be safe to
> recommend people do that. Then it is a simple matter of whether we think
> implicit is OK, or whether it needs an explicit command. My patch does
> it explicitly because that was the consensus from the earlier
> discussion; I am in favour of the explicit route which is why I wrote
> the patch that way, not because I wrote it that way.
I'm not too sure I understand what you mean in saying that Noah's
patch is "implicit"...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
