Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ1-GaNa7go_B0m3Gigy3YR-ELgdB-ww8B24vjdXwFY7w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric
(Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Andrew Gierth > <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >> The substance of the code is unchanged from my original patch. I didn't >> add diagnostic output to numeric_abbrev_abort, see my separate post >> about the suggestion of a GUC for that. > > I don't think that V2 really changed the substance, which seems to be > the implication of your remarks here. You disagreed with my decision > on NULL values - causing me to reconsider my position (so that's now > irrelevant) - and you disagreed with not including support for 32-bit > platforms. Those were the only non-stylistic changes, though. I > certainly didn't change any details of the algorithm that you > proposed, which, FWIW, I think is rather clever. I added a few > defensive assertions to the encoding/conversion routine (which I see > you've removed in V3, a long with a couple of other helpful > assertions), and restructured and expanded upon the comments, but > that's all. > > You haven't really taken into my account my V2 feedback with this V3 > revision. Even after you yourself specifically called out your > non-explanation of excess-44 as a possible point of confusion for > readers of your patch, you didn't change or expand upon your remarks > on that one iota. Guys, can we please knock it off with the dueling patches? Peter, it's really not all that helpful to take somebody else's patch, rewrite it in a form that they may or may not agree with (even if it's just the comments), and post that as "v2". And when the person then posts "v3" that reverts most of your changes, don't go put them all back and call that "v4". Instead, you should take the hint: these are not "versions" of the same patch - they are two different approaches to the same problem. In this type of situation, I generally post my patch with a name like "topicofthepatch-rmh-v1.patch" or "topicofthepatch-rmh-20150323.patch", putting my initials in there to show that this is my version of the patch, not the original author's and that it may or may not be endorsed by the original author. Having 26 versions of this patch where all of the odd-numbered versions looks like Andrew's original version and all of the even-numbered versions look like Peter's "v2" is not going to make anybody happy - not either of you, not me, and not anybody else here. The typical style of review here, which I endorse, is to tell the other person what you think they should change. There is a place for directly posting a new version yourself, when the amount of cleanup required is too great to be articulated in an email, and you really want to get the thing committed; or when the original author has disappeared and you want to take up the work. But you should try to do that only in cases where you are fairly sure your work will be welcome because, quite aside from whether it ruffles any feathers, it's easy to waste a lot of time rewriting something only to find out that others don't agree with your rewrites. Discussion helps to avoid that. Furthermore, when there *is* a disagreement about something, the thing to do is to ask for (or simply wait for) the opinions of others, not dig in your heals. Andrew doesn't have a *right* to have his version committed, and you don't have a *right* to change it. What we all have a right to do is discuss, and hopefully agree on, what is best. Thanks, -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: