| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
| Date: | 2017-01-24 16:32:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoasLSiUvK-MQdObPd5fMdVtxt7qVXGC5tMacGNrkGOY=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
>
> Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for
> committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is nothing
> actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the syntax and
> implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.
>
> I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which require
> a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use case,
> including not being limited to the current set of operators.
>
> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.
I disagree. I think his decision was probably based on this email from me:
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-24 16:36:11 | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2017-01-24 16:30:58 | Re: Checksums by default? |