On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:16 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > That's another way of saying "the patch is not anywhere close to being done".
My patch is materially incomplete. Certainly we may see that as grounds for rejection, which I would not and could not argue with. It is a popular feature, so I submitted anyway. When I said Noah's patch was trivial, I was referring to the amount of work expended on it so far; no insult intended. I think the amount of code to finish either is fairly low as well. If we wish to continue in this release then we must decide how. What I was trying to indicate in my earlier comments was that my focus is on achieving the required functionality in this release, or put another way, I would accept Noah's patch rather than end with nothing. The main requirement, as I see it, is error checking. We need to do the same checking however we do it; neither patch currently does it. If Noah's patch had error checking, then it would at least be safe to recommend people do that. Then it is a simple matter of whether we think implicit is OK, or whether it needs an explicit command. My patch does it explicitly because that was the consensus from the earlier discussion; I am in favour of the explicit route which is why I wrote the patch that way, not because I wrote it that way. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
