Hi Noah, On 6/8/15 10:13 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > My condemnation of the pg_audit commits probably hurt you as the feature's > authors. I am sorry for that. Your code was better than most "Ready for > Committer" code, and I hope you submit more patches in the future.
I appreciate you saying this and especially for saying it publicly. I've certainly had quite the experience as a first-time contributor working on this patch. Perhaps I bit off more than I should have and I definitely managed to ruffle a few feathers along the way. I learned a lot about how the community works, both the good and the bad. Fear not, though, I'm not so easily discouraged and you'll definitely be hearing more from me. My honest, albeit novice, opinion is that it was a mistake to pull pg_audit from contrib. I know more than anyone that it had flaws, mostly owing to its implementation as an extension, but it also provided capability that simply does not exist right now. Recent conversations about PGXN demonstrate why that is not (currently) a good alternative for distributing extensions. That means pg_audit will have a more limited audience than it could have had. That's a shame, because people are interested in pg_audit, warts and all. The stated purpose of contrib is: "include porting tools, analysis utilities, and plug-in features that are not part of the core PostgreSQL system, mainly because they address a limited audience or are too experimental to be part of the main source tree. This does not preclude their usefulness." Perhaps we should consider modifying that language, because from my perspective pg_audit fit the description perfectly. Of course, I understand this is a community effort and I don't expect every contribution to be accepted and committed. Consider me disappointed yet determined. -- - David Steele da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
