Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reviewers, please let me know if you find problems with the > patches. If none, I would like to commit this weekend.
Given that everyone who has tested this has found a different way to crash it, and that the frequency of crash reports shows no signs of slowing down, I have to think that committing it is premature. I tried to look through the patch just now and failed to make any sense of it, because of the complete absence of documentation. Two unexplained examples added to the SELECT reference page don't do it for me. I want to see an explanation of exactly what behaviors are intended to be provided (and, in view of the long TODO list that was posted awhile back, what isn't provided). And there needs to be more than zero internal documentation. A README file, or perhaps a very long file header comment, needs to be provided to explain what's supposed to happen, when, and where when processing a recursive query. (For comparison look at the README.HOT file that was created to explain the HOT patch --- something at about that level of detail would help this patch a lot. Or consider adding a section to chapter 43 in the SGML docs.) We really can't accept a patch that is so poorly documented as to be unreviewable. Unreviewable also means it'll be unmaintainable going forward. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches