Andrew,
* Andrew Gierth (andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk) wrote:
> Right, and we all know that all code is perfect when committed. sheesh.
That clearly wasn't what was claimed.
> (This is actually the first time in six months that I've had occasion
> to look at that part of the code; that's how long it's been sitting in
> the queue.
While such issues are frustrating for all of us, huffing about it here
isn't particularly useful.
> And yes, it was one of my bits, not David's. Maybe I
> should have left the bug in to see how long it took you to spot it?)
That attitude is certainly discouraging.
> What I'm very notably not seeing from you is any substantive feedback.
> You've repeatedly described this patch as broken on the basis of
> nothing more than garbled hearsay while loudly proclaiming not to have
> actually looked at it; I find this both incomprehensible and insulting.
As Greg is the one looking to possibly commit this, I certainly didn't
consider his comments on the patch to be garbled hearsay. It would have
been great if he had been more clear in his original comments, but I
don't feel that you can fault any of us for reading his email and
voicing what concerns we had from his review. While you might wish that
we all read every patch submitted, none of us has time for that- simply
keeping up with this mailing list requires a significant amount of time.
> If you have legitimate technical concerns then let's hear them, now.
Fine- I'd have been as happy leaving this be and letting Greg commit it,
but if you'd really like to hear my concerns, I'd start with pointing
out that it's pretty horrid to have to copy every record around like
this and that the hack of CreateTupleDescCopyExtend is pretty terrible
and likely to catch people by surprise. Having FunctionNext() operate
very differently depending on WITH ORDINALITY is ugly and the cause of
the bug that was found. All-in-all, I'm not convinced that this is
really a good approach and feel it'd be better off implemented at a
different level, eg a node type instead of a hack on top of the existing
SRF code.
Now, what would be great to see would be your response to Dean's
comments and suggestions rather than berating someone who's barely
written 5 sentences on this whole thread.
Thanks,
Stephen