On 4/7/20 7:32 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:34 AM Anna Akenteva <a.akenteva@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> On 2020-04-08 00:45, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>> While there is lots of discussion it ended up with the thread at
>>> "returned with feedback" (a month ago) and now we have a commit.
>>> There seems to be other relevant discussion not linked to.
>>>
>>> David J.
>>
>> Hello! Sorry about the confusion.
>>
>> This feature somehow managed to have multiple separate discussion
>> threads:
>> [1]
>> https://postgr.es/m/0240c26c-9f84-30ea-fca9-93ab2df5f305%40postgrespro.ru
>> [2]
>> https://postgr.es/m/80f267591b373db5588d580fdfb432f0%40postgrespro.ru
>> [3]
>> https://postgr.es/m/195e2d07ead315b1620f1a053313f490%40postgrespro.ru
>
> My email client somehow merge these threads into single one. This is
> why I missed [2] and [3] in the commit message. Sorry for that.
Well, I think Ivan should have certainly replied on the original thread
(where I marked the patch RwF after Fujii's recommendation) before
detaching it and reviving the patch.
Better yet, the original thread should not have been detached at all.
Now having read the active thread it seems this patch was pushed through
at the last moment despite some objections from Amit.
I can see there are new proposals for syntax post-commit on the thread.
Honestly, I'm at a loss for what to say. This just seems wrong.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
