Re: pgbench more operators & functions

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
>>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
>>
>> Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for
>> committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is nothing
>> actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the syntax and
>> implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.
>>
>> I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which require
>> a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use case,
>> including not being limited to the current set of operators.
>>
>> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.
>
> I disagree. I think his decision was probably based on this email from me:

(argh, sent too soon)

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+Tgmoa0zp4A+S+KosaV4QfDz-wA56vLpH8me86rmpsnkvWc2w@mail.gmail.com

Nobody responded to that, and I have not seen any committer say that
they are in favor of this. Against that, three committers (Tom,
Stephen, me) have taken the view that they are opposed to at least
some parts of it. No changes to the patch have resulted from those
complaints. So this is just submitting the same thing over and over
again and hoping that the fourth or fifth committer who looks at this
is going to have a different opinion than the first three, or fail to
notice the previous discussion.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company