From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: sortsupport for text |
Date: | 2012-10-08 22:35:37 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_U+kaYJ3wxF-3X6zrbFPPt=N55SBHP8vgdXOAhkuZ1h9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 October 2012 21:35, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hey, if me deciding I don't want to work on a patch any more is going
> to make you feel slighted, then you're out of luck. The archives are
> littered with people who have decided to stop working on things
> because the consensus position on list was different than the approach
> that they personally favored, and I have as much right to do that as
> anyone else.
Sure you do. However, I doubt very many of those who gave up did so
over so trivial an issue as to how to grow a buffer somewhere, and
those that did usually did not go on to become major contributors, and
certainly not committers. The buffer thing is, as far as I know, the
single solitary point of contention with this patch. We're talking
about 2 lines of code. To give up now is just petulant. There is no
other way of looking at it.
> It is not as if anyone has phrased this as a maybe-we-should
> sort of argument; there have been quite definite arguments on both
> sides over apparently strongly-held positions. I had hoped that this
> was going to be a quick and non-controversial win, but 74 email
> messages later it has become clear that it will be neither of those
> things.
Many of those 74 emails concerned my completely unrelated digression
into exploiting strxfrm(); we spent a ridiculously long time
discussing how to size this buffer, but it still wasn't anything like
74 messages.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-08 22:52:13 | Placement of permissions checks for large object operations |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-08 22:08:38 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |