On 2/3/16 11:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> That's good to hear, but again, it's not enough for a core submission.
> Code that goes into our main git repository needs to be "the
> prettiest".  I mean it's not all perfect of course, but it should be
> pretty darn good.

I still think it's pretty darn good given what 2ndQuadrant and I had to
work with but I also think it could be a lot better with some core changes.

> Also, understand this: when you get a core submission accepted, the
> core project is then responsible for maintaining that code even if you
> disappear.  It's entirely reasonable for the project to demand that
> this isn't going to be too much work.  It's entirely reasonable for
> the community to want the design to be very good and the code quality
> to be high.  It's entirely reasonable for the community NOT to want to
> privilege one implementation over another.  If you don't agree that
> those things are reasonable then we disagree pretty fundamentally on
> the role of the community.  The community is a group of people to whom
> I (or you) can give our time and my (or your) code, not a group of
> people who owe me (or you) anything.

I think our differences are in the details and not in the general idea.
 In no way do I want to circumvent the process or get preferential
treatment for me or for my company.  I believe in the community but I
also believe that we won't get anywhere as a community unless
individuals give voice to their ideas.

I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion.  From my
perspective there's little to be gained in continuing to beat this
horse.  If the errhidefromclient() patch is accepted then that will be a
good step for pgaudit and I'll be on the lookout for other ways I can
both contribute useful code to core and move the pgaudit project forward.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to