At 2015-02-17 13:01:46 -0500, sfrost@snowman.net wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I'm confused by this. Patches don't stabilise
> through sitting in the archives, they stabilise when the comments are
> being addressed, the patch updated, and further comments are
> addressing less important issues. The issues which Robert and I had
> both commented on didn't appear to be getting addressed.
I'm confused and unhappy about your characterisation of the state of
this patch. You make it seem as though there was broad consensus about
the changes that were needed, and that I left the patch sitting in the
archives for a long time without addressing important issues.
You revised and refined your GRANT proposal in stages, and I tried to
adapt the code to suit. I'm sorry that my efforts were not fast enough
or responsive enough to make you feel that progress was being made. But
nobody else commented in detail on the GRANT changes except to express
general misgivings, and nobody else even disagreed when I inferred, in
light of the lack of consensus that Robert pointed out, that the code
was unlikely to make it into 9.5.
Given that I've maintained the code over the past year despite its being
rejected in an earlier CF, and given the circumstances outlined above, I
do not think it's reasonable to conclude after a couple of weeks without
a new version that it was abandoned. As I had mentioned earlier, there
are people who already use pgaudit as-is, and complain if I break it.
Anyway, I guess there is no such thing as a constructive history
discussion, so I'll drop it.
-- Abhijit