Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I have not looked at your patches and am not familiar with ECPG, but I
> wonder if part of the issue here is that there are too many
> interrelated changes. Maybe you'd be better off submitting some
> smaller changes, wait to see how they get committed, and then move on
> to the next thing. On the other hand, given that Michael seems to
> have no time to review ECPG patches or provide feedback, and given
> that none of the other committers seem to want to touch this with a
> ten-foot-pole, maybe that would make this take forever.
I presume that at some point Michael will have more free time than
he does now; we cannot expect him to do the work exactly in sync with
an arbitrarily-scheduled commit fest. Since ECPG stuff isn't really
blocking anything else, I have no problem with waiting till he does
have time. But in the meantime, I think it's probably true that
breaking things down into independently-reviewable patches might be
helpful.
(On the other hand, there are already four separate patches for ECPG
in the queue ... does it really need to be broken down more than
that?)
regards, tom lane