On 2/2/16 4:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:

The eventual committer is likely to be much happier with this patch if
you guys have achieved consensus among yourselves on the best

(Disclaimer: The eventual committer won't be me.  I'm not a Python
guy.  But we try to proceed by consensus rather than committer-dictat
around here, when we can.  Obviously the committer has the final say
at some level, but it's better if that power doesn't need to be
exercised too often.)

Actually I imagine that if there's no agreement between author and first
reviewer, there might not *be* a committer in the first place.  Perhaps
try to get someone else to think about it and make a decision.  It is
possible that some other committer is able to decide by themselves but I
wouldn't count on it.


FWIW, I'd think it's better to not break backwards compatibility, but I'm also far from a python expert. It might well be worth adding a plpython GUC to control the behavior so that there's a migration path forward, or maybe do something like the 'import __future__' that python is doing to ease migration to python 3.
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to