* Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote:
> I think that there is a misunderstanding, most of which being my fault.

No worries, it happens. :)

> I have really tried to do everything that was required from
> committers, including revising the patch to match all previous
> feedback.

Thanks for continuing to try to work through everything.  I know it can
be a difficult process, but it's all towards a (hopefully) improved and
better PG.

> Version 6 sent on Oct 4 did include all fixes required at the time
> (no if, no unusual and operators, TAP tests)... However I forgot to
> remove some documentation about the removed stuff, which made Robert
> think that I had not done it. I apologise for this mistake and the
> subsequent misunderstanding:-(

Ok, that helps clarify things.  As does the rest of your email, for me,

> If pgbench is about being seated on a bench and running postgres on
> your laptop to get some heat, my mistake... I thought it was about
> benchmarking, which does imply a few extra capabities.

I believe we do want to improve pgbench and your changes are generally
welcome when it comes to adding useful capabilities.  Your explanation
was also helpful about the specific requirements.

> IMHO the relevant current status of the patch should be "Needs
> review" and possibly "Move to next CF".

For my 2c, at least, while I'm definitely interested in this, it's not
nearly high enough on my plate with everything else going on to get any
attention in the next few weeks, at least.

I do think that, perhaps, this patch may deserve a bit of a break, to
allow people to come back to it with a fresh perspective, so perhaps
moving it to the next commitfest would be a good idea, in a Needs Review



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to