On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 09:36:41PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 8/3/21 8:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 08:51:57PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > How would this be different from the CFM just rejecting patches? It does > > > not > > > matter if there's an explicit number of patches that we allow to be moved > > > to > > > the next CF - someone still needs to make the decision, and I agree with > > > Tom > > > it probably should not be CFM's job. > > > > My experience with the query id patch is that it can't be rejected > > because everyone wants it, but it needs work to get it in a state that > > everyone approves of. Sometimes it is impossible for the patch author > > to figure that out, and I needed Álvaro Herrera's help on the query id > > patch, so even I wasn't able to figure it out alone. > > > > Yeah, and I'm sure this applies to various other patches too - we want the > feature, but it requires more work, and it may not be clear how much and > what's the path forward. > > But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for CFM to assess this, or > whether someone else should make this decision? > > IMHO asking the CFM to do this would be a tremendous burden - properly > assessing 50+ patches is a lot of work, and probably requires a fairly > experienced hacker ...
I don't think the CFM can do this --- I think it has to be a team effort, as was the query id patch. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.