Horton

Re: pgbench more operators & functions

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-24T16:32:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status.
>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch.
>
> Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for
> committer" patch is switched to "return with feedback", as there is nothing
> actionnable, and I've done everything required to improve the syntax and
> implementation, and to justify why these functions are useful.
>
> I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which require
> a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use case,
> including not being limited to the current set of operators.
>
> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary.

I disagree.  I think his decision was probably based on this email from me:


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

Commits

  1. Improve scripting language in pgbench