On 10/3/21 3:56 PM, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
>> As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
>> oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
>> on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
>> should stop pushing them forward to the next CF.
>>
>> An important note to make here is that we don't have any explicit
>> mechanism for saying "sorry, this patch is perhaps useful but it
>> seems that nobody is going to take an interest in it". Closing
>> such a patch as "rejected" seems harsh, but R-W-F isn't very
>> appropriate either if the patch never got any real review.
>> Perhaps we should create a new closure state?
>>
>> I looked at entries that are at least 10 CFs old, as indicated by
>> the handy sort field. That's a pretty small population: 16 items
>> out of the 317 listed in the 2021-09 CF. A quick look in recent
>> CFs shows that it's very rare that we commit entries older than
>> 10 CFs.
>>
>> Here's what I found, along with some commentary about each one.
>>
>> Patch Age in CFs
>
> May I add one more?
>
> SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE started 2018 (the commitfest page shows only 4 as
> 'Age in CFs' but that obviously can't be right)
>
> Although I like the patch & new functionality and Andrew Dunstan has
> worked to keep it up-to-date, there seems to be very little further
> discussion. I makes me a little worried that the time I put in will
> end up sunk in a dead project.
>
>
I'm working on the first piece of it, i.e. the SQL/JSON functions.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com