Re: knngist patch support

Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> This is very disgraceful from my point of view and reflects real problem
> in scheduling of CF. The patch was submitted Nov 23 2009, discussed and
> reworked Nov 25. Long holidays in December-January, probably are reason why
> there were no any movement on reviewing the patch.

There was a scheduling problem all right, which was that this patch *did
not make* the deadline for the November CF. The fact that it got any
review at all in November was more than expected under the CF process.
And I remind you that we stated more than once that we didn't want major
feature patches to show up only at the last CF. If it had come from
anyone other than you and Teodor, there would have not been even a
moment's consideration of letting it into 9.0.

My own feeling about it is that I much preferred the original proposal
of a contrib module with little or no change to core code. I don't want
to be changing core code for this at this late hour. If it were only
touching GIST I'd be willing to rely on your and Teodor's expertise in
that module, but it's not. It whacks around the planner, it makes
questionable changes in the operator class structure, and the last
version I saw hadn't any documentation whatever. It's not committable
on documentation grounds alone, even if everybody was satisfied about
the code.

How do you feel about going back to the original contrib module for now
and resubmitting the builtin version for 9.1?

regards, tom lane