Re: Rethinking the parameter access hooks for plpgsql's benefit

On 03/09/2015 09:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>  From the reading the original post it seems like the patch was developed on
>> Sales Force's time, not TGLs. I do not think we get to have an opinion on
>> that.
>
> Salesforce gets to develop their patches whenever they want, but they
> don't get to control the community process for getting those patches
> committed to PostgreSQL.

Did I miss the part of the post that said, (speaking as Tom): FYI, I am 
ignoring the commit fest deadline and committing this?

Are we supposed to hold patches when we are post-deadline and not seek 
feedback? That seems rather hostile.

>
>> Thank you Tom for the efforts you made here, making the largest used PL
>> better, faster, stronger is exactly the type of micro-changes we need to be
>> looking at for further polish within the database.
>
> So, just to be clear, are you proposing that everybody is exempted
> from the CommitFest deadlines, or just Tom?

I am not suggesting that anyone is exempted from a CommitFest deadline. 
I am actually rather hard line that we should be keeping them.

I think it is ridiculous to post on the bad/good/timing of a patch 
submission unless there is a case being made that the process isn't 
actually being followed. I don't see that here.

In short, soap boxing does nobody any good.


JD



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc

Now I get it: your service is designed for a customer
base that grew up with Facebook, watches Japanese seizure
robot anime, and has the attention span of a gnat.
I'm not that user., "Tyler Riddle"