út 20. 5. 2025 v 23:07 odesílatel Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> napsal:
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:36:54PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 16:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Well, we do have a right, e.g., we would not allow someone to repeatedly > > post patches for a Postgres extension we don't manage, or the jdbc > > driver. I also don't think we would allow someone to continue posting > > patches for a feature we have decided to reject, and I think we have > > decided to reject the patch in in its current form. I think we might > > accept a trimmed-down version, but I don't see the patch moving in that > > direction. > > > > Now, of course, if I am the only one who feels this way, I can suppress > > these emails on my end. > > In my opinion, this patch set is adding something that would be valuable to > have in core. > > If no committer intends to pick it up and commit it, I think the proper > action would be to step up and reject the patch set, not complain about the > insistence of the author.
Are you saying I should not complain until we have officially rejected the patch set? If we officially reject it, the patch author would no longer post it?
I'll respect committers. I really don't want to worry people in the community. It is not my way, and I am sorry.
I think this is an important feature - for some group of developers, and then I push my energy and time for this.
On the other hand, I accept that there is a lot of work that is important for a wider group of users. So it is. Unfortunately,
without parser's hooks this feature cannot be implemented as an extension. But parser's hooks was proposed,
and rejected, so there is no other possibility, how to do it. More - implementation of this feature as an extension is not
