On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> On 30.01.2012 17:18, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I asked clearly and specifically for you to hold back committing
>> anything. Not sure why you would ignore that and commit without
>> actually asking myself or Peter. On a point of principle alone, I
>> think you should revert. Working together is difficult if
>> communication channels are openly ignored and disregarded.
> You must be referring to this:
> What I committed in the end was quite different from the version that was in
> reply to, too. If you have a specific objection to the patch as committed,
> please let me know.
I said "There is much yet to discuss so please don't think about committing
There's not really any way you could misinterpret them.
>> Peter and I have been working on a new version that seems likely to
>> improve performance over your suggestions. We should be showing
>> something soon.
> Please post those ideas, and let's discuss them. If it's something simple,
> maybe we can still sneak them into this release. Otherwise, let's focus on
> the existing patches that are pending review or commit.
If you really did want to discuss it, it would have taken you 5
minutes to check whether there was consensus on the patch before
committing it. Your actions betray the opposite of a willingness to
Yes, I'd like to discuss ideas, not just ram home a half-discussed and
half-finished patch that happens to do things the way you personally
prefer, overriding all inputs.
Especially when you know we're working on another version.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-01-30 20:04:24|
|Subject: Re: Group commit, revised|
|Previous:||From: hubert depesz lubaczewski||Date: 2012-01-30 18:53:51|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Why extract( ... from timestamp ) is not