Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Checksums patch isn't sucking much attention at all but admittedly
> there are some people opposed to the patch that want to draw out the
> conversation until the patch is rejected,

Wow.  Sounds like a really shitty thing for those people to do -
torpedoing a perfectly good patch for no reason.

I have an alternative theory, though: they have sincere objections and
don't accept your reasons for discounting those objections.

> I'm not sure how this topic is even raised here, since the patches are
> wholly and completely separate, apart from the minor and irrelevant
> point that the patch authors both work for 2ndQuadrant. If that
> matters at all, I'll be asking how and why.

It came up because Josh pointed out that this patch is, in his
opinion, in better shape than the checksum patch.  I don't believe
anyone's employment situation comes into it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company