Re: [PATCHES] Custom variable class segmentation fault

Bruce,

I think you have misunderstood.

If you and Peter have reviewed it thoroughly then I see no reason the
patch should not be applied.

My post below was merely to agree with Tom that in principle, patches
should be be reviewed before application and not after. I still think
that's right - I have been concerned lately that the buildfarm has been
broken a bit too much.

cheers

andrew

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>
>> Bruce, Andrew, Tom.
>>
>> I little bit confuse now, what status of this patch is? I check your
>> observation and I agree with them. But I don't where is "ball" now and
>> what I can/must do now like author of this patch?
>>
>
> I am unsure too. I would not back out a patch for nonspecific concerns
> from one person, but from two people I reverted it. Tom wants more eyes
> on it, but I don't know how that is going to happen, especially since
> Peter, who has done a lot of GUC work, has reviewed it already, and so
> have I.
>
> I will keep the patches and if no one works on it, again ask to apply it
> before we finish 8.2, and see if there are still objections. If there
> are still objections, we will have to vote on whether we want it
> applied.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>> Bruce Momjian napsal(a):
>>
>>> OK, with two people now concerned, patch reverted.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've always found it easier to review uncommitted patches than committed
>>>>> ones anyway. When you're playing catch-up by reviewing a committed
>>>>> patch, you have to deal with three states of the code rather than two
>>>>> (pre-patch, post-patch, your own mods). That gets rapidly worse if the
>>>>> patch has been in there awhile and other changes go in on top of it.
>>>>> Plus, once other changes accumulate on top, it becomes extremely painful
>>>>> to revert if the conclusion is that the patch is completely broken.
>>>>> (A conclusion that I don't think is at all unlikely with respect to
>>>>> this patch.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Easy or not this strikes me as good policy. And nothing is urgent quite
>>>> yet - we still have another 18 days to the end of the month, which is
>>>> the stated deadline for getting patches reviewed and committed.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>> andrew
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>>> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>>>
>
>