On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:35:52 -0500
Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2007, at 0:06 , Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I am surprised we are not backing
> > out the patch and requiring that the patch go through the formal  
> > review
> > process.
> I have no opinion as to the patch itself (other than the fact that  
> it's a not bug fix), but I think this patch should be reverted  
> because it's (a) after feature freeze, (b) had no discussion on  
> hackers (or patches), (c) is not a bug fix. IMO rules can be bent
> but there should always at least be discussion before a new feature
> is committed after feature freeze and definitely after beta.
> Otherwise, the rule appears to be if you can get it in somehow, it's
> in.

I think this almost says it all. My particular gripe about this whole
thing is that there are other features that are not too intrusive (or
appear so anyway) that are easily more useful that are not being 
considered at all. Namely,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-10/msg00087.php . It
makes the whole process seem tilted and subjective.

IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry.


Joshua D. Drake


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
                        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to