On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
I wouldn't say rejection per se - but I would definitely say push it out to 9.2. > 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. I'm not too sure I understand what you mean in saying that Noah's patch is "implicit"... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
