Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@2ndquadrant.com>,
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-29T15:07:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > This is complete and pretty clean now. 1200 lines of code, plus docs and tests. > > I'm expecting to commit this and then come back for the Partitioning & > RLS later, but will wait a few days for comments and other reviews. I agree with Peter: that's unacceptable. You're proposing to commit a patch that is not only has had only a very limited amount of review yet but by your own admission is not even complete. Partitioning and RLS shouldn't be afterthoughts; they should be in the original patch. Moreover, the patch should have had meaningful review from people not involved in writing it, and that is a process that generally takes a few months or at least several weeks, not a few days. An argument could be made that this patch is already too late for PG 11, because it's a major feature that was not submitted in relatively complete form before the beginning of the penultimate CommitFest. I'm not going to make that argument, because I believe this patch is probably sufficiently low-risk that it can be committed between now and feature freeze without great risk of destabilizing the release. But committing it without some in-depth review is not the way to get there. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Add support for MERGE SQL command
- 7103ebb7aae8 15.0 landed
-
Add API of sorts for transition table handling in trigger.c
- 3a46a45f6f00 15.0 landed
-
Revert MERGE patch
- 08ea7a2291db 11.0 cited
-
Fix several bugs related to ON CONFLICT's EXCLUDED pseudo relation.
- ad2278379244 9.6.0 cited