Re: release management team statement on patch reverts

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: release management team statement on patch reverts
Date: 2016-05-04 19:51:07
Message-ID: 21036.1462391467@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The PostgreSQL 9.6 release management team has determined that there
> is insufficient consensus at this time to revert any of the patches
> mentioned in http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYOWTtBQEL+Bv=w93bvUjbXSUw3uGnp+R29dduZ==8K0Q@mail.gmail.com
> because, with the exception of "snapshot too old", none of those
> patches have attracted more than a single vote to revert. While
> "snapshot too old" has attracted three votes to revert (Tom, Bruce,
> Andres), one of those was on the grounds of not liking the feature i
> general rather than any specific problem with the implementation (Tom)
> and another gave no reason at all (Bruce). When originally proposed,
> there was clear consensus that the feature was useful, so any revert
> should be on the grounds that the current implementation is flawed.

... which, indeed, is precisely what Andres is asserting, no? I do
not understand your conclusion.

If the threshold is "more than one vote to revert", I'm sure that can
be arranged. For the most part I think people have assumed that if
one senior hacker complains about something, it's not really necessary
for other people to duplicate that person's review effort. We don't
have a surplus of manpower available for such things, and I believe
most of us are going flat out right now anyway trying to get ready
for beta. Duplicate reviews are hard to come by.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-05-04 19:54:32 Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-05-04 19:45:42 Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)