Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax
Date
Msg-id CAL9smLA9hJ-B3Eq3fxe7=CG7ESkH+C6sW762fbnVQvMxsxfVSA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax  (Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 5:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> > You have to either include the pre-requisite patches as 0001, and your patch as
> > 0002 (as I'm doing now), or name your patch something other than *.diff or
> > *.patch, so cfbot doesn't think it's a new version of the patch to be tested.
>
> This patch has been basically ignored for a full two years now.
> (Remarkably, it's still passing in the cfbot.)
>
> I have to think that that means there's just not enough interest
> to justify committing it.  Should we mark it rejected and move on?
> If not, what needs to happen to get it unstuck?

I can help with review and/or other work here.  Please give me a
couple of weeks.


.m



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_comman
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock