Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > This is normally caused by Stephan's patches.  His patches were
> > > originally against 6.3, and he ported them to 6.4, but he normally does
> > > lots of development without any communication with us, sends us a huge
> > > patch, and we normally have to clean up the edges somewhat.  This patch
> > > actually caused fewer problems than the HAVING patch he submitted.
>
> >
> >     Porting  his  patch  to  v6.4 was not exactly what he did. He
> >     changed the v6.5 tree in a way that his patch fit's into.
>
> Yes, I understand the frustration.  I had that with HAVING.  I
> symathize.  It also bothers me when things are added that are disruptive
> to other code, and I see he did that.
>
> Should we remove his patch?  I don't know.

    I  don't  think  it's  possible to remove it easily. Too many
    things have been done after.

    I've only noticed while browsing through the code why he  did
    comment  out  those things. He's comparing memoy addresses of
    nodes, what doesn't work any more after copyObject(). If he's
    not available right now, we must fix that part. I can help on
    that, but someone else must tell what queries should  produce
    which expected output.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #