Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 1. It sure seems like there is an awful lot of code churn and design
> work going on.
There has only been minor adjustments for a while now, and they have
been visible because Thom was doing lots of testing for me and it was
way easier for me to publish a new version and have a test result the
next day (thanks again Thom).
> Personally, I am about at the point where I'd like to punt everything
> and move on. As nice as it would be to squeeze a few more things into
> 9.2, there WILL be a 9.3. If a few less people had submitted
> half-baked code at the last minute and a few more people had helped
> with review, we'd be done by now.
Well, wait a minute. There's a difference between half-baked and
reacting to a review that changes the goal of a patch. My idea of the
code I wanted to write here is extremely different from what we as a
community decided to be doing. The main part of the code churn has been
answering to review, removing features and cleaning the code afterwards.
The only major design decision that I had to change here has been about
from where to call in the command trigger code in the existing commands
implementation, and it was done before entering this CF, IIRC.
If you want to punt this patch out of 9.2 after all the changes I had to
make for it to be a candidate for 9.2, I think it would be only fair for
you to find a show stopper in my current implementation. The trigger
firing order is about an hour of work, so not a stopper I believe.
And as soon as we're done here, you know I'll put the same hours and
energy into reviewing other people patches :)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
