From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
Date: | 2018-04-05 21:01:33 |
Message-ID: | 20180405210133.qjed2nrbyj3rcafl@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-04-05 13:51:41 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 01:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I want to be on the record that I think merging a nontrival feature that
> > got submitted 2018-02-21, just before the start of the last last CF, is
> > an abuse of process, and not cool. We've other people working hard to
> > follow the process, and circumventing it like this just signals to
> > people trying to follow the rules that they're fools.
> >
> > Merging ~2kloc patches like that is going to cause pain. And even if
> > not, it causes procedual damage.
>
> Perhaps I am missing something but there has been a lot of public discussion
> on this feature for the last 7 weeks of which you barely participated.
I've commented weeks ago about my doubts, and Robert concurred:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZPRfMqZoK_Fbo_tD9OH9PdPFcPBsi-sdGZ6Jg8OMM2PA%40mail.gmail.com
> I certainly understand wanting some notice before commit but there has
> been lots of discussion, multiple people publicly commenting on the
> patch and Magnus has been very receptive to all feedback (that I have
> seen).
It's perfectly reasonable to continue review / improvement cycles of a
patch, even if it's not going to get in the current release. What does
that have to do with what I am concerned about?
> Perhaps we are being a sensitive because of another patch that is
> actually ramrodding the process and we need to take a step back?
No. See link above.
Please don't use "we" in this childishness implying fashion.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2018-04-05 21:08:51 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-04-05 20:55:58 | Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE |