On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes >> > we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch >> > authors at one time. >> >> I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I >> found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally >> normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about. > > I think we should concentrate efforts on just one patch: Masao's.
I understand that's your opinion, but you haven't explained why. My approach is simpler and Fujii Masao has already endorsed it. I would prefer that we focus on the technical issues here rather than who wrote the patch. I believe that my approach is better because it avoids duplicating code, which should reduce the chance of future bugs, since someone might conceivably update one chunk of code but not the other. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
