Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql

From: "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Teodor Sigaev" <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql
Date: 2016-02-09 14:40:52
Message-ID: a0907c45-21cd-41de-a455-e6693c2c7a7a@mm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> While I understand that you may think that "silence is consent",
> what I am afraid of is that some committer will look at this two
> months from now and say "I hate this Hcol+ stuff, -1 from me" and
> send the patch back for syntax rework. IMO it's better to have more
> people chime in here so that the patch that we discuss during the
> next commitfest is really the best one we can think of.

Yes, but on the other hand we can't force people to participate.
If a patch is moving forward and being discussed here between
one author and one reviewer, and nothing particularly wrong
pops out in what is discussed, the reality if that other people will
not intervene.

Besides, as it being mentioned here frequently, all patches, even
much more important ones, are short on reviews and reviewers
and testing, still new stuff must keep getting in the source tree
to progress.

Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2016-02-09 14:45:55 Re: More thorough planning for OLAP queries (was: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters)
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2016-02-09 14:32:10 Re: proposal: schema PL session variables