On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 08:39:36PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 1:41 PM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think you have to stop flooding this list with code that nobody wrote >> and nobody will read.
+1. > This was not meant to be final in any way; it was meant to introduce > an *idea* with a PoC implementation for people who want to verify its > merits. You could send ideas, without patches attached, or just let them live on a branch somewhere else and post a link to it. If you just post a concept in a few words or a design, an LLM could most likely digest your idea and produce code matching with what's been done, these days. > Was marking it [PATCH] the main confusing thing, or was there also > something else? Sending a zillion number of AI-generated POC ideas on the lists is not a particularly useful thing to do and not a useful thing to load the Postgres infrastructure servers with. FWIW, my state of mind regarding these submissions gets rather simpler these days: as a committer, I'm not going to spend time in brushing and fixing code that the author has visibly not written or thought much about, especially if there is a high quantity of it, and I'm seeing a lot of quantity and what looks like low-quality code from your email address. I'd suggest to focus on quality, not AI-generated quantity. The former is much harder to do than the latter these days. When it comes to the amount of code to review, as a committer the former (quality) matters much, much, more to me than the latter (quantity) these days, even more if the patch submitter has visibly put some efforts into it and is ready to argue over it. Spoiler: my own impression is that your contents are mostly copy-pasted from AI-generated contents, they give zero impression that you put efforts in it yourself, and that you just gave orders to an LLM to do something. I tend to just ignore these as noise; and I'm in peace with that depending on the contents posted because it's less noise to deal with and I can focus on getting actual quality work done. There are exchanges with your ideas where I see that folks (senior contributors, committers) clearly raise eyebrows and say that they may not be good ideas. Overall, it feels to me that you keep rejecting these arguments on the ground that your ideas are better. Consensus is a multi-dimensional concept, it is not one-dimensional. What makes me sad is that these MBs worth of patches just act as a way to backup your data in everybody's mail boxes, for stuff that I suspect few are really interested to look at. Posting ideas in the shape of an email is fine, bumping dozens of MBs worth of data that only another AI is able to digest is an insane loop to enter. If you are not ready to argue over each line of code, perhaps the code is not good for posting it yet. After writing that, I'll go back to enjoying my weekend. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
