Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 16:28:01 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
	Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
	jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	DUVAL REMI <REMI.DUVAL@cheops.fr>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: proposal: schema variables
Message-ID: <aCzl0SQYGTBJfdtY@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CAFj8pRC_2tHski1K4hUMZm0+T4y7na4d8hwgMMF7Y0MXhfUhbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB-JLwaOdMQN838Fy2r2qZLTExfJp0zcjQjmOFVRXhW_-uDNVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRArtw+Qqzk+Zf2NxjgO=paCBdc54eEma+MsVwtx3j7Atg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRAK_8ym1J=SAdin-vtL0PAachXgjWgU3QrhzinRdBX2sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRAx-Gb9Ux825cxGNm38qQUOrij1GY6erPRaQ=cpqfiX7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFj8pRCEjG005L=1vGbir-odYdcYxByOAeFVJ_K9eRcRF=MbNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aCyYHXhAjXOUPvLO@momjian.us>
 <CAB-JLwY2-Hm_SYbj2td_VKuU8awCwgDr-sOtjHRE2C-Sgg_pFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aCywNzDx2J3jrY1-@momjian.us>
 <41D2EE98-224D-4B43-9F8B-127525A99CD7@yesql.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41D2EE98-224D-4B43-9F8B-127525A99CD7@yesql.se>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aCzl0SQYGTBJfdtY%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:47:36PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 20 May 2025, at 18:39, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > My only point is that we should only be using email lists for work that
> > is being actively worked on to be added to community Postgres.  There
> > has been talk of a trimmed-down version of this being applied, but I
> > don't see any work in that direction.
> > 
> > This patch should be moved to a separate location where perhaps people
> > can subscribe to updates when they are posted, perhaps github.
> 
> As a project with no roadmap governed by open forum consensus I don't think we
> have any right to tell community members what they can or cannot work on here,
> any technical discussion which conforms with our published policies should be
> welcome.  If Pavel want's to continue rebasing his patchset here then he has,
> IMHO, every right to do so.
> 
> Whether or not a committer will show interest at some point is another thing,
> but we are seeing a very good role-model for taking responsibility for ones
> work here at the very least =)

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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.