On 13 July 2015 at 14:39, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael Paquier <[email protected]> writes: > > Regarding the fact that those two contrib modules can be part of a > > -contrib package and could be installed, nuking those two extensions > > from the tree and preventing the creating of custom tablesample > > methods looks like a correct course of things to do for 9.5. > > TBH, I think the right thing to do at this point is to revert the entire > patch and send it back for ground-up rework. I think the high-level > design is wrong in many ways and I have about zero confidence in most > of the code details as well. >
Based on the various comments here, I don't see that as the right course of action at this point. There are no issues relating to security or data loss, just various fixable issues in a low-impact feature, which in my view is an important feature also. If it's > to stay, it *must* get a line-by-line review from some committer-level > person; and I think there are other more important things for us to be > doing for 9.5. > Honestly, I am very surprised by this. My feeling was the code was neat, clear and complete, much more so than many patches I review. If I had thought the patch or its implementation was in any way contentious I would not have committed it. I take responsibility for the state of the code and will put time into addressing the concerns mentioned and others. If we cannot resolve them in reasonable time, a revert is possible: there is nothing riding on this from me. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
