On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 13 March 2014 13:17, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The bottom line here is that, as in previous years, there are a
>> certain number of people who show up near the end of CF4 and are
>> unhappy that some patch didn't get committed. Generally, they allege
>> that (1) there's nothing wrong with the patch, (2) if there is
>> something wrong with the patch, then it's the fault of the people
>> objecting for not volunteering to fix it, and (3) that if the patch
>> isn't committed despite the objections raised, it's going to be
>> hideously bad for PostgreSQL. Josh Berkus chose to put his version of
>> this rant on his blog:
>
> An interesting twist.
>
> 1) It's a simple patch and could be committed. Claiming otherwise
> would not be accurate.
>
> 2) Nobody has said "it's the fault of the people objecting for not
> volunteering to fix it"
>
> 3) As I explained twice already, *not* committing the patch does
> *nothing* to prevent extension writers from making up their own
> mechanism, so blocking the patch does nothing. Writing the extra code
> required takes a while, but frankly its quicker than pointless
> arguing. PostgreSQL will not explode if this patch is blocked, nor
> will it explode if we allow unvalidated options.
>
> Hmm, so actually none of those points stick.
>
> Perhaps we're talking about another patch that you think should be
> rejected? Not sure.
Well, I'm *trying* to talk about the fact that I think that any
machinery that allows custom reloptions (or their equivalent) should
also support mandatory validation. I think this subthread is somehow
getting sidetracked from the meat of that conversation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company