On 10/3/21 3:56 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote: > Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane: >> As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the >> oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed, >> on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we >> should stop pushing them forward to the next CF. >> >> An important note to make here is that we don't have any explicit >> mechanism for saying "sorry, this patch is perhaps useful but it >> seems that nobody is going to take an interest in it". Closing >> such a patch as "rejected" seems harsh, but R-W-F isn't very >> appropriate either if the patch never got any real review. >> Perhaps we should create a new closure state? >> >> I looked at entries that are at least 10 CFs old, as indicated by >> the handy sort field. That's a pretty small population: 16 items >> out of the 317 listed in the 2021-09 CF. A quick look in recent >> CFs shows that it's very rare that we commit entries older than >> 10 CFs. >> >> Here's what I found, along with some commentary about each one. >> >> Patch Age in CFs > > May I add one more? > > SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE started 2018 (the commitfest page shows only 4 as > 'Age in CFs' but that obviously can't be right) > > Although I like the patch & new functionality and Andrew Dunstan has > worked to keep it up-to-date, there seems to be very little further > discussion. I makes me a little worried that the time I put in will > end up sunk in a dead project. > >
I'm working on the first piece of it, i.e. the SQL/JSON functions. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
