From: | Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb array-style subscription |
Date: | 2016-03-02 23:55:19 |
Message-ID: | CAKOSWN=cCnLt+MHBiz7USOnMoPRRpaKB-tW5pPKtJeR+We6SDA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/16, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
>> I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there are
>> a
>> lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep
>> nesting"
>> of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb subscription, is more
>> about the
>> "jsonb_set" function, and anyway it's not a good idea). It looks fine for
>> me, and I need a little guidance - is it ok to propose this feature for
>> commitfest 2016-03 for a review?
>
> Has this patch been proposed in some commitfest previously? One of the
> less-commonly-invoked rules of commitfests is that you can't add patches
> that are too invasive to the last one -- so your last chance for 9.6 was
> 2016-01. This is harsh to patch submitters, but it helps keep the size
> of the last commitfest down to a reasonable level; otherwise we are
> never able to finish it.
I'd like to be a reviewer for the patch. It does not look big and very invasive.
Is it a final decision or it has a chance? If something there hurts
committers, it can end up as "Rejected with feedback" (since the patch
is already in the CF[1])?
[1]https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/485/
--
Best regards,
Vitaly Burovoy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-02 23:56:36 | Re: Convert pltcl from strings to objects |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-03-02 23:48:06 | Re: Publish autovacuum informations |