On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:36:11PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I agree that the DDL behaviour is wrong and should be fixed. Thank you
> for championing that alternative view.
>
> Swapping based upon names only works and is very flexible, much more so
> than EXCHANGE could be.
>
> A separate utility might be worth it, but the feature set of that should
> be defined in terms of correctly-working DDL behaviour. It's possible
> that no further requirement exists. I remove my own patch from
> consideration for this release.
>
> I'll review your patch and commit it, problems or objections excepted. I
> haven't looked at it in any detail.
Thanks. I wouldn't be very surprised if that patch is even the wrong way to
achieve these semantics, but it's great that we're on the same page as to which
semantics they are.
> Having said that, writing the patch did nothing to convince me this was
> the correct approach. Reviews should be reviews, they are not an
> opportunity to provide your own alternate version of a patch. That just
> confuses things and creates a competitive, not a cooperative
> environment. Authors do need to listen to reviewers, so I hope I'm
> demonstrating that here.
Understood. I can see now that posting a second code patch, however framed, in
the same thread creates a presumption of aggression that is difficult to dispel.
I will have a lot to think about before doing that again. Thanks for giving
this discussion, which started poorly due to my actions, a second chance.
nm