On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'd be okay with the parts of this that duplicate existing backend syntax > and semantics, but I don't especially want to invent further than that.
I agree, and I think that's pretty much what we all said back in October, and the patch hasn't been revised since then to match those comments. Perhaps I'm in a grumpy mood today, but I've got enough patches to review from people who are willing to revise their patches in response to feedback to spend very much time on patches from people who aren't. I realize that it can be frustrating to have to defer to a committer when it's a 1-1 tie between you and the person with git access - is that really a consensus? But in this case, 3 separate committers weighed in on this thread to very politely give essentially the same feedback and that is certainly a consensus. Not only was the patch not revised, but the very idea that the patch might need to be revised before further consideration was greeted with indignation. Let's mark this Returned with Feedback and move on. We've only got a week left in the CommitFest anyhow and there are lots of other things that still need work (and which actually have been revised to match previous feedback). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
