Re: RLS feature has been committed

Simon,

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 23 September 2014 07:45, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> > OTOH, if the patch is actually OK as it was committed, there's no point
> > reverting it only to commit it again later. At the end of the day, the
> > important thing is that the patch gets sufficient review. Clearly Stephen
> > thinks that it did, while you and Andres do not.
>
> I would observe that not requesting a revert would be inconsistent
> against all other situations I have seen or been involved with.

A revert wasn't requested by the individual who raised the concern (or,
indeed, explicitly by *anyone*.. it was hinted at, but I felt the
individuals who were hinting at it were leaving it up to that individual
who had a concern), and I discussed it with him extensively and we came
to what I believe is an understanding. I'm not sure that I understand
the need to bring it up again, unless you have a concern regarding what
was committed.

I agree that I jumped the gun on it and said as much. On the flip side,
it's not had quite a bit of review and there is a promise of more, which
I feel is great for the project as a whole.

> My major reason to revert is the following: the documentation contains
> no examples of real world usage, making the feature essentially
> unusable out of the box.

I find this to be an interesting argument considering most of our
documentation doesn't include real-world examples. I'm happy to add
more examples than those listed thus far, certainly, though I've
understood documentation to be of less general importance than code
quality and maintainability- and someone willing and committed to
maintain it.

> I attended Stephen's talk at PostgesOpen and
> even that didn't contain real cases either, leaving me to ask
> questions about stuff I thought I knew. This would be sufficient for
> me to reject commit of any other patch, so it is sufficient reason
> here also. Yeb can supply a useful real world case if there is some
> restriction on explaining what this might be used for.

This wouldn't be the only case of documentation (indeed, *any*
documentation) being added after a commit, and so I'm mystified by this
requirement for *real-world* examples in documentation to be provided
prior to commit.

> Stephen, I want this patch in 9.5 and I would very much like to see it
> go in before Oct 31. But please follow consensus, revert the patch
> now, address the minor issues as requested and then ask for re-commit
> later, as you should have done in the first place.

Simon, if you want me to revert it because of an objection over the
design, code quality, maintainability, or utter lack of documentation,
then I absolutely respect that request and would be happy to do so.

This request I am completely lost on.

Thanks,

Stephen