Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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