From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Getting a move on for 8.2 beta |
Date: | 2006-09-04 17:38:38 |
Message-ID: | 200609041738.k84HccN09490@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid.
>
> > To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone
> > wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the "if no
> > one objects, I'll just commit it" mode that is sometimes going on. Has
> > anyone actually tested the patch?
>
> Perhaps more to the point: a refactorization patch is all about beauty
> in the eye of the beholder. If Peter, the original author of the guc
> code, thinks that it's a disimprovement, I think it's a hard argument
> to make that the patch should go in anyway.
How many times do I have to say this: IT IS NOT A REFACTOR PATCH AS
REPORTED BY THE AUTHOR, AND PETER HAS NOT REFUTED THAT.
It fixes a bug reported by the author, and Peter's inability to reply to
the comments the author made is exactly the behavior I am talking about.
If Peter does not want to engage in a technical discussion about the
patch, I don't think we can consider his opinion valid.
Seems I will have to call for a vote on this patch.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-04 17:39:31 | Re: [PATCHES] Contrib module to examine client |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 17:34:36 | Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings |