On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> A clear description of the feature being added is necessary to agree
> its acceptance. When we implement a SQL Standard feature, we can just
> look in the standard to see how it should work and compare. When we go
> off-piste, we need more info to make sure we know what we are getting
> as well as why we are not getting something from the Standard.
I think that's fair.
> I have not suggested I would block the patch because it doesn't have
> docs. I have pointed out that the lack of consensus about the patch is
> because nobody knows what it contains, which others agreed with. My
> request was, and is, a proposed mechanism to *unblock* a very
> obviously stalled patch.
Please keep asking questions - it isn't necessarily obvious to me
*what* isn't clear, because of my lack of perspective. That's a useful
role. It occurs to me now that I ought to have found a place to
document "cardinality violations" [1], but I didn't, for example.
[1] http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-2274
--
Peter Geoghegan
