Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on

Michael Meskes írta:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:34:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> qualified to review them. (I don't actually think we have anybody
>> except Michael who's really familiar with ecpg.)
>>
>
> I'm afraid I'm simply not able to spend much time on this in the near future as
> I'm simply too busy atm. I spend some time on these the last time, but wasn't
> even able to see how Zoltan changed the points we mentioned back then, but I'm
> sure he has.
>
> As already noted the patches stack on each other. There doesn't seem to be a
> technical reason for this at least not for some of those dependencies. With the
> first patch changing the grammar file and thus taking quite some reviewing
> effort this slows things down even more because one needs more effort to review
> for instance the sqlda addition, although that one seems to be quite easy to
> review.
>

You're not being fair with me. The dependencies are quite
technical.

First, Tom Lane suggested to unify core and ecpg FETCH
syntaxes so both will accept optional FROM/IN, which I did.
SQLDA support adds new FETCH forms (Informix-specific
ones) so naturally these patches clash. There's no simple way
to make they separately applicable. With the first version,
the same technical dependency were also there, because of
the (already explained) grammar problem, I got 2 shift/reduce
problems in the FETCH/MOVE stmts unless I de-factorized
FORWARD and BACKWARD out of fetch_direction.
The new FETCH forms with SQLDA touched the same areas
in ecpg.addon.

Second, DESCRIBE support and SQLDA support also overlap,
because SQLDA is a new descriptor form, and DESCRIBE has to
support both SQL descriptors and SQLDA. Well, I can split the
DESCRIBE patch in half, so it will be usable on SQL descriptors
but the other part would depend on both SQLDA and basic
DESCRIBE support. Technical dependency again.

What non-technical dependencies are you talking about?
Please explain, so I may fix them. Saying it vaguely doesn't help.

When I first posted the split patchset, you didn't tell me that
the split is no good. I tried everything help I could to explain
why I did what.

Also, the current reviewer (Dan Colish) haven't contacted me despite
I offered help privately. I can't review my own patches, that's clear.
But I can't do anything else to speed review up but to offer my help
and wait for the help/explanation request that didn't arrive.

Also, I have sent some independent very small patches, that don't
even need much review. One of them (the typo in pgc.l) was already
applied and I thank you Michael, but the memory leak fix for two
improperly freed numerics is still behind. Please, look at that patch,
it should be really obvious.

> All of this is written from the top of my head, so please bear with me if I
> missed any changes in the patches.
>
> Michael
>

Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi

--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics

----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/