Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid.
>
> > To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone
> > wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the "if no
> > one objects, I'll just commit it" mode that is sometimes going on. Has
> > anyone actually tested the patch?
>
> Perhaps more to the point: a refactorization patch is all about beauty
> in the eye of the beholder. If Peter, the original author of the guc
> code, thinks that it's a disimprovement, I think it's a hard argument
> to make that the patch should go in anyway.
How many times do I have to say this: IT IS NOT A REFACTOR PATCH AS
REPORTED BY THE AUTHOR, AND PETER HAS NOT REFUTED THAT.
It fixes a bug reported by the author, and Peter's inability to reply to
the comments the author made is exactly the behavior I am talking about.
If Peter does not want to engage in a technical discussion about the
patch, I don't think we can consider his opinion valid.
Seems I will have to call for a vote on this patch.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +