On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> First, my experience as a basic patch submitter is that any patch which does
> more than one thing at a time, even somehow closely related changes, is
> asked to be split into distinct sub-patches, and is harder to get through.
>
> Second, requiring more advanced features is a recipee for getting nothing in
> the end, because even if not "that complex" it requires significant more
> time to develop. The first step I outlined is enough to handle the submitted
> use case and is compatible with grand plans which would change significantly
> psql, so seems a reasonnable intermediate target.
>
> Your experience as an seasoned core developer and a committer is probably
> different:-)
Well, everybody can have their own opinion on what is reasonable.
There are times I argue for making a patch smaller (frequent) and
times when I argue for making it bigger (rare). We had pretty much
this exact same argument about the pgbench lexer and parser and in the
event I coded something up in less than a day. This argument feels
like a rerun of that one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
