> On 08 Jan 2018, at 17:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's definitely concerning that the submitted patch introduced a new bug,
>> but we have seldom taken the position that bugs in an initial submission
>> are sufficient grounds for rejecting the entire concept.
>
> Fair point. I withdraw my categorical -1 vote and replace it with the
> statement that the patch hasn't been sufficiently-carefully checked by
> the patch author or other reviewers for bugs to consider committing it
> -- nor has anyone taken the trouble to list with precision all of the
> places where the behavior will change. I think the latter is
> absolutely indispensable, which is why I started to compile such a
> list in my previous post.
Sorry for dropping off the radar, my available time for hacking was severely
limited (well, down to zero really).
Seeing the surface again I’ve started on the complete list and hope to have
something quite soon, and I think (as seems to be the consensus on this thread)
that that list is a prerequisite for the review.
cheers ./daniel
