On 8/3/21 8:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> How would this be different from the CFM just rejecting patches? It does not
>> matter if there's an explicit number of patches that we allow to be moved to
>> the next CF - someone still needs to make the decision, and I agree with Tom
>> it probably should not be CFM's job.
>
> My experience with the query id patch is that it can't be rejected
> because everyone wants it, but it needs work to get it in a state that
> everyone approves of. Sometimes it is impossible for the patch author
> to figure that out, and I needed Álvaro Herrera's help on the query id
> patch, so even I wasn't able to figure it out alone.
>
Yeah, and I'm sure this applies to various other patches too - we want
the feature, but it requires more work, and it may not be clear how much
and what's the path forward.
But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for CFM to assess this,
or whether someone else should make this decision?
IMHO asking the CFM to do this would be a tremendous burden - properly
assessing 50+ patches is a lot of work, and probably requires a fairly
experienced hacker ...
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
