|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 19 12:09:24 -0400 2011:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be
> >> applied even if there are semantic errors elsewhere, I'm just as happy
> >> to let Alexey or Florian have a go at it first, if they want. The real
> >> question at the moment is do we have consensus about changing that?
> >> Because if we do, the submitted patch is certainly not something to
> >> commit as-is, and should be marked Returned With Feedback.
> > I'm not totally convinced. The proposed patch is pretty small, and
> > seems to stand on its own two feet. I don't hear anyone objecting to
> > your proposed plan, but OTOH it doesn't strike me as such a good plan
> > that we should reject all other improvements in the meantime. Maybe
> > I'm missing something...
> To me, the proposed patch adds another layer of contortionism on top of
> code that's already logically messy. I find it pretty ugly, and would
> prefer to try to simplify the code before not after we attempt to deal
> with the feature the patch wants to add.
+1. Alexey stated that he would get back on this patch for reworks.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2011-07-19 16:59:22||Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys|
|Previous Message||Ian Caulfield||2011-07-19 16:22:55||Re: storing TZ along timestamps|