From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
Date: | 2013-10-16 09:19:27 |
Message-ID: | 525E5A1F.5050102@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/16/2013 10:57 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Vik,
>
>> I see this is marked as rejected in the commitfest app, but I don't see
>> any note about who did it or why. I don't believe there is consensus
>> for rejection on this list. In fact I think the opposite is true.
>>
>> May we have an explanation please from the person who rejected this
>> without comment?
>
> I did it, on the basis that you stated that you prefered not adding
> pg_sleep(TEXT) to answer Robert Haas concern about preserving
> pg_sleep('10') current functionality, and that no other solution was
> suggested to tackle this issue.
The suggested solution is to ignore the issue.
> If I'm mistaken, feel free to change the state back to what is
> appropriate.
I'm not really sure what the proper workflow is for marking a patch as
rejected, actually. I wouldn't mind some clarification on this from the
CFM or somebody.
In the meantime I've set it to Ready for Committer because in my mind
there is a consensus for it (see below) and you don't appear to have
anything more to say about the patch except for the do-we/don't-we issue.
> My actual opinion is that breaking pg_sleep('10') is no big deal, but
> I'm nobody here, and Robert is somebody, so I think that his concern
> must be addressed.
Tom Lane is somebody, too, and his opinion is to break it or reject it
although he refrains from picking a side[1]. Josh Berkus and Stephen
Frost are both somebodies and they are on the "break it" side[2][3].
Peter Eisentraut gave no opinion at all but did say that Robert's
argument was not very good. I am for it because I wrote the patch, and
you seem not to care. So the way I see it we have:
For: Josh, Stephen, me
Against: Robert
Neutral: Tom, you
I don't know if that's enough of a consensus to commit it, but I do
think it's not nearly enough of a consensus to reject it.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16727.1376697147%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/520EC584.3050805@agliodbs.com
[3]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130820013033.GU2706@tamriel.snowman.net
--
Vik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-16 10:15:20 | Re: Standby catch up state change |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-10-16 08:57:44 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |