Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape

On 14 July 2015 at 15:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 13 July 2015 at 14:39, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> TBH, I think the right thing to do at this point is to revert the entire
> >> patch and send it back for ground-up rework. I think the high-level
> >> design is wrong in many ways and I have about zero confidence in most
> >> of the code details as well.
>
> > There are no issues relating to security or data loss, just various
> fixable
> > issues in a low-impact feature, which in my view is an important feature
> > also.
>
> There is a *very large* amount of work needed here, and I do not hear you
> promising to do it.

I thought I had done so clearly enough, happy to do so again.

I promise that either work will be done, or the patch will be reverted.
Since I have more time now, I view that as a realistic prospect.

> What I'm hearing is stonewalling, and I am not happy.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by that but it sounds negative and is almost
certainly not justified, in this or other cases.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services