Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...  The GUC comment/default patch had tons of
> emails, but no other committers got involved to review or commit the
> patch.  Peter, who knows GUC well, looked at it, but said he didn't
> review it enough.

Peter has made it pretty clear that he didn't care for the
refactorization aspect of that patch.

> I just spent 1/2 hour fixing the multi-value UPDATE
> patch for the code drift caused by UPDATE/RETURNING.  The patch is a
> simple grammar macro.  Any coder could have taken that, reviewed it, and
> applied it, but no one did.

Perhaps that's because nobody but you wanted it to go in.

Some amount of the issue here is that people won't work on patches they
don't approve of; that's certainly the case for me.  I have more than
enough to do working on patches I do think should go in, and I get tired
of having to repeatedly object to the same bad patch.  Do you remember
Sturgeon's Law?  It applies to patches too.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to