On 1/19/16, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > >> I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there are >> a >> lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep >> nesting" >> of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb subscription, is more >> about the >> "jsonb_set" function, and anyway it's not a good idea). It looks fine for >> me, and I need a little guidance - is it ok to propose this feature for >> commitfest 2016-03 for a review? > > Has this patch been proposed in some commitfest previously? One of the > less-commonly-invoked rules of commitfests is that you can't add patches > that are too invasive to the last one -- so your last chance for 9.6 was > 2016-01. This is harsh to patch submitters, but it helps keep the size > of the last commitfest down to a reasonable level; otherwise we are > never able to finish it.
I'd like to be a reviewer for the patch. It does not look big and very invasive. Is it a final decision or it has a chance? If something there hurts committers, it can end up as "Rejected with feedback" (since the patch is already in the CF[1])? [1]https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/485/ -- Best regards, Vitaly Burovoy -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
