> Attached is a patch that converts several sprintf() calls to > snprintf() in libpq client library code.
I'm not sure we should take a patch with a tag attributing authorship to an LLM owned by a commercial entity.
Agreed. As with a book author, any bad code, decisions, or other mistakes are solely the fault of the submitting author. As is the good stuff. Ideally the author has confirmed it is good (in their own opinion) since they expect others to do so as well as part of the review and commit process.
It is in fact a reputational thing for authors to take full ownership of what they submit.
Do we really want to be accepting code patches written by tools that make the most obvious code worse than before? I am quite scared of the quality of code of medium complexity written by this tool.
I'd say take this as an opportunity to teach (or not) just as if the author of patch claimed to write the entire thing without AI assistance. But it would definitely be reasonable for a hastily produced patch that doesn't pass muster to be hastily rejected on such grounds. We have plenty to review and if this patch wouldn't have existed without LLM assistance then unless it sparks the interest in someone to go and clean it up anyway we are not really any worse off being quick to state that it doesn't meet our standards.
Otherwise, while there is a patch, maybe just treat it as a simple suggestion with an example.
