On 13 March 2014 13:17, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> The bottom line here is that, as in previous years, there are a
> certain number of people who show up near the end of CF4 and are
> unhappy that some patch didn't get committed. Generally, they allege
> that (1) there's nothing wrong with the patch, (2) if there is
> something wrong with the patch, then it's the fault of the people
> objecting for not volunteering to fix it, and (3) that if the patch
> isn't committed despite the objections raised, it's going to be
> hideously bad for PostgreSQL. Josh Berkus chose to put his version of
> this rant on his blog:
An interesting twist.
1) It's a simple patch and could be committed. Claiming otherwise
would not be accurate.
2) Nobody has said "it's the fault of the people objecting for not
volunteering to fix it"
3) As I explained twice already, *not* committing the patch does
*nothing* to prevent extension writers from making up their own
mechanism, so blocking the patch does nothing. Writing the extra code
required takes a while, but frankly its quicker than pointless
arguing. PostgreSQL will not explode if this patch is blocked, nor
will it explode if we allow unvalidated options.
Hmm, so actually none of those points stick.
Perhaps we're talking about another patch that you think should be
rejected? Not sure.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
