В письме от вторник, 25 марта 2025 г. 17:57:46 MSK пользователь Nathan Bossart написал:
> In any case, AFAICT the votes are somewhat evenly divided at the moment, so > I do not intend to proceed with this patch for now. Counting votes does not lead anywhere, as I can ask friends and colleagues to vote for me for example. This is wrong way. There are people who involved it supporting reloption engine. If Alvaro said "isset_offset" is good, let's have it, I will shut keep my mouth shut, right after saying "As you say". Because he is the author of that part of the code, I respect this. I am also the person that dedicated lot's of efforts to work with reloptions. I will do it for may years ahead, I think. This isset_offset I will have to support from now on, if we do not revert it. I do not like it, I see there is no logic in it, at least the way you suggest it. If you want to dedicate part of your life to reloptions, you are welcome. I need help with a code to review. If you really need isset_offset let's together redisign options to use it instead of default_value. Go for it, but not partly, but totally. But if you want to fix one option and leave, please do not leave us with isset_offset. This is not about democracy, this is about who will deal with that part of the code later. I guess it will be me and Alvaro, not you. Please let us have the code the way we like it, since we support it most of the time. -- Nikolay Shaplov aka Nataraj Fuzzing Engineer at Postgres Professional Matrix IM: @dhyan:nataraj.su
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
