| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |
| Date: | 2018-01-08 16:27:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoavsaa9S44mBL995PiejDtkvHirmHj1VGDXhxHmz0or2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It's definitely concerning that the submitted patch introduced a new bug,
> but we have seldom taken the position that bugs in an initial submission
> are sufficient grounds for rejecting the entire concept.
Fair point. I withdraw my categorical -1 vote and replace it with the
statement that the patch hasn't been sufficiently-carefully checked by
the patch author or other reviewers for bugs to consider committing it
-- nor has anyone taken the trouble to list with precision all of the
places where the behavior will change. I think the latter is
absolutely indispensable, which is why I started to compile such a
list in my previous post. The former needs to be done as well, of
course.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Finnerty | 2018-01-08 16:28:15 | Re: Parallel append plan instability/randomness |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-08 16:18:47 | Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |