From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime |
Date: | 2011-07-18 21:40:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYi3wb97Vb03CHFpYAM1zSosDpTb41YsnS=rGtFpzT=WQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> and an
>> error-reporting patch that Tom weighed in on over the weekend. This
>> last suffers from the issue that it's not quite clear whether Tom is
>> going to do the work or whether he's expecting the submitter to do it.
>
> If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be
> applied even if there are semantic errors elsewhere, I'm just as happy
> to let Alexey or Florian have a go at it first, if they want. The real
> question at the moment is do we have consensus about changing that?
> Because if we do, the submitted patch is certainly not something to
> commit as-is, and should be marked Returned With Feedback.
I'm not totally convinced. The proposed patch is pretty small, and
seems to stand on its own two feet. I don't hear anyone objecting to
your proposed plan, but OTOH it doesn't strike me as such a good plan
that we should reject all other improvements in the meantime. Maybe
I'm missing something...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joey Adams | 2011-07-18 22:17:10 | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-18 21:13:42 | Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors |