Thread: Re: [PATCHES] drop if exists remainder
On Saturday 04 March 2006 22:24, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm inclined
> > to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's decide before
> > too much bitrot occurs, though.
>
> +1 :)
>
+1
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Tom, > > > What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm > > > inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's > > > decide before too much bitrot occurs, though. > > > > +1 :) > > +1 We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if we're going to do "IF EXISTS" for any objects, we should do it for all objects. Otherwise we risk a considerable amount of user confusion. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > >>>> What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm >>>> inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's >>>> decide before too much bitrot occurs, though. >>>> >>> +1 :) >>> >> +1 >> > > We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if we're going to do "IF > EXISTS" for any objects, we should do it for all objects. Otherwise we > risk a considerable amount of user confusion. > > OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to look carefully at that. Pity people didn't speak up when this was first raised. :-) cheers andrew
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the > patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted > with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to > look carefully at that. Pity people didn't speak up when this was > first raised. :-) I did :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
David Fetter wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the >> patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted >> with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to >> look carefully at that. Pity people didn't speak up when this was >> first raised. :-) >> > > I did :) > > Important as you are, "one swallow does not make a summer". cheers andrew
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:34:54PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >>OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the > >>patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted > >>with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to > >>look carefully at that. Pity people didn't speak up when this was > >>first raised. :-) > >> > > > >I did :) > > > > > > > Important as you are, "one swallow does not make a summer". On the other hand, unless we want the lists filling up with a bunch of +1 posts, it's probably better to assume that unless someone objects a patch would be accepted. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> Important as you are, "one swallow does not make a summer". >> > > On the other hand, unless we want the lists filling up with a bunch of > +1 posts, it's probably better to assume that unless someone objects a > patch would be accepted. > What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit, so I concluded that it was not generally wanted. Since then I have had probably 10 requests for it, so I am now going to work to update it and will post a revised patch. cheers andrew
Andrew, > What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need > for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked > for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit, > so I concluded that it was not generally wanted. Did you poll on -hackers or on -patches? A *lot* less people read -patches. This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Andrew, > > >> What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need >> for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked >> for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit, >> so I concluded that it was not generally wanted. >> > > Did you poll on -hackers or on -patches? A *lot* less people read > -patches. > Yeah. true. Although, I must say that I discovered very early on in my pg-hacking experience that unless you read -patches too you don't really know what's going on ;-) > This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch > which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion > be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original > feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the > feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version. > > Fair point. Maybe I only posted on -patches. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > >Andrew, > > > >>What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need > >>for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked > >>for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit, > >>so I concluded that it was not generally wanted. > > > >Did you poll on -hackers or on -patches? A *lot* less people read > >-patches. > > Yeah. true. Although, I must say that I discovered very early on in my > pg-hacking experience that unless you read -patches too you don't really > know what's going on ;-) Actually reading -committers is also a must, because you then know that something is really going on and it's not just chatter. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch
> which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion
> be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original
> feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the
> feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version.
Um, if they're not reading -patches, why would they think the feature
had been accepted, or even submitted? In any case, when we reject a
patch, it's not usually a conclusion that will get reversed just because
more people are involved in the discussion. The people who might
actually be able to *fix* the patch are probably reading -patches.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch > > which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion > > be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original > > feature are not on -patches and then are unpleasantly surprised when the > > feature they though was accepted doesn't show up in the next version. > > Um, if they're not reading -patches, why would they think the feature > had been accepted, or even submitted? In any case, when we reject a > patch, it's not usually a conclusion that will get reversed just because > more people are involved in the discussion. The people who might > actually be able to *fix* the patch are probably reading -patches. But there may be people in -hackers who can *convince* those on -patches that the patch should get fixed and not dropped (e.g. the case at hand). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support