Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
Date: 2007-10-10 00:10:36
Message-ID: 20071009171036.2641899a@scratch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:04:41 -0700
Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:50 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > IMO, the patch is reverted, and submitted for 8.4 or pgfoundry.
>
> That means another delay for improving PostgreSQL replication.

No. It can go on pgFoundry. Remember this is a contrib module, not
something that is directly integrated into core. We loose nothing by
having it on pgfoundry.

>
> I think we are all pretty sure that Jan knows what he is doing -- he
> has involved in replication issues for years, and as a long-time core
> member, I'm sure that he knows the rules -- but I think this patch
> will speed up works on replication.
>

That isn't really the point. This has nothing to do with Jan or Peter
or Dave. It has to do with procedure. Procedures should be followed and
followed equally for all. That didn't happen in this case.

> (Will all respect to pginstaller team, I'm *think* it won't take much
> time to add txid to installer, at least compared to the time that we
> spent discussing this issue.)

With respect, you don't know. My understanding of the pginstaller
project is that it is a fairly heft undertaking. It isn't as simple on
Linux as just calling to the OS level dependencies because library
versions etc..

>
> You know, txid was discussed in Slony-I + Skytools lists for a
> reasonably long time, and Tom also commented in that thread. I agree
> that we broke the policy this time, but this does not mean the end of
> the world.

This is irrelevant. It should have happen on -hackers.

>
> What we should to do is to prevent such things happening in the
> future, rather than reverting this patch and delaying replication
> issues.
>

There is no delay in what is being proposed.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> Regards,

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-10-10 00:16:53 Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
Previous Message Neil Conway 2007-10-10 00:07:29 Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-10-10 00:16:53 Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
Previous Message Neil Conway 2007-10-10 00:07:29 Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review