On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 19:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This seems large, complex, and untested (I note in particular a > >> guaranteed-to-fail Assert). > > > Yes, its for discussion. How would you describe such a patch in the > > future? I want to be able to differentiate patch status. > > "Completely untested" might be an appropriate description ...
That wouldn't be true, because it passes make check. If it were true, I'd have said it. Your responses are inappropriate to a patch clearly marked "for discussion", especially when you privately suggested this topic for me to look at and you also know exactly which system I was going to run a performance test on once I had the patch agreed. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
