On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
> whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
> expend any real effort.
I've spent some time looking at it and have made all the comments I
wished to make. The design seems clear and fit for purpose, having read
KaiGai's excellent Wiki description of how it all fits together and also
read some PDF links Bruce sent out.
But I've not had time to look at the whole patch and my contacts have
not had sufficient time to do anything meaningful with it either.
If we can minimise the impact on normal running and it doesn't have any
implications for robustness, it should be OK. Surely we should give it a
quick review to see if it has any gotchas. If not, and KaiGai is willing
to commit to supporting it, then should be good to go. KaiGai isn't a
home hacker, he's a lead developer for a major multinational, so we
should be able to take his word if he says he will continue to
contribute fixes if problems are found. If we don't commit to him and
his company then they won't commit to us either.
The process works like this: software gets developed, then it gets
certified. If its not certified, then Undercover Elephant will not be
used by the secret people. We can't answer the "will it be certified?"
question objectively yet. If we have someone willing to write the
software and put it forward for certification then we should trust that
it probably will pass certification and if it doesn't we will see
further patches to allow that to happen.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support