Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid. > > > To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone > > wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the "if no > > one objects, I'll just commit it" mode that is sometimes going on. Has > > anyone actually tested the patch? > > Perhaps more to the point: a refactorization patch is all about beauty > in the eye of the beholder. If Peter, the original author of the guc > code, thinks that it's a disimprovement, I think it's a hard argument > to make that the patch should go in anyway.
How many times do I have to say this: IT IS NOT A REFACTOR PATCH AS REPORTED BY THE AUTHOR, AND PETER HAS NOT REFUTED THAT. It fixes a bug reported by the author, and Peter's inability to reply to the comments the author made is exactly the behavior I am talking about. If Peter does not want to engage in a technical discussion about the patch, I don't think we can consider his opinion valid. Seems I will have to call for a vote on this patch. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
