| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
| Date: | 2012-03-03 00:01:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoauC7cCHOGGjpD2g8QsG=toF=ftXQXh421t9jDuwATXZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
I have an alternative theory, though: they have sincere objections and
don't accept your reasons for discounting those objections.
> I'm not sure how this topic is even raised here, since the patches are
> wholly and completely separate, apart from the minor and irrelevant
> point that the patch authors both work for 2ndQuadrant. If that
> matters at all, I'll be asking how and why.
It came up because Josh pointed out that this patch is, in his
opinion, in better shape than the checksum patch. I don't believe
anyone's employment situation comes into it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-03-03 00:08:33 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-03-02 23:33:41 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |