Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoasLSiUvK-MQdObPd5fMdVtxt7qVXGC5tMacGNrkGOY=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgbench more operators & functions  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
>
> Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for
> committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is nothing
> actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the syntax and
> implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.
>
> I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which require
> a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use case,
> including not being limited to the current set of operators.
>
> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.

I disagree.  I think his decision was probably based on this email from me:


-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Checksums by default?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions