Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)

On 03/05/2012 05:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly
>>> there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the
>>> conversation until the patch is rejected,
>> Wow. Sounds like a really shitty thing for those people to do -
>> torpedoing a perfectly good patch for no reason.
> You've explained to me how you think I do that elsewhere and how that
> annoyed you, so I think that topic deserves discussion at the
> developers meeting to help us understand one another rather than
> perpetuate this.
>
>

No matter how much we occasionally annoy each other, I think we all need
to accept that we're all dealing in good faith. Suggestions to the
contrary are ugly, have no foundation in fact that I'm aware of, and
reflect badly on our community.

Postgres has a well deserved reputation for not having the sort of
public bickering that has caused people to avoid certain other projects.
Please keep it that way.

cheers

andrew