Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:21:16PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I, as a non-committer, have proposed that the rules be bent once or
>> twice in the past, and those suggestions were rejected without
>> exception, even though I imagined that there was a compelling
>> cost/benefit ratio. I thought that was fine. I always assumed that I
>> had the same right to suggest something as a committer. The only
>> fundamental difference was that I had to convince a committer that my
>> assessment was correct, rather than simply avoiding having the
>> suggestion be vetoed. I'd need to do both. Clearly my previous
>> understanding of this was questionable, to say the least.
>
> Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
> apply anything during that period. I think the only restriction for the
> last commitfest is that the committer can not apply a new patch that
> would have been too big to be submitted to the last commitfest. If
> enough people feel that this committer behavior during the last
> commitfest is a problem, we can discuss changing that policy.

One thing that's crystal clear here is that we don't all agree on what
the policy actually is.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company