Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 4:13 AM Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> I get it that the goal is to release PostgreSQL 14 and I also get it
> that nobody is interested in the reasons for my slow reaction. I even,
> at least to an extend, understand why nobody tried reaching out to me
> directly. However, what I cannot understand at all is the tone of this
> email. Is this the new way of communication in the PostgreSQL project?
>
> Just to be more precise, I find it highly offensive that you address an
> email only to me (everyone else was on CC) and yet do not even try to
> talk to me, but instead talk about me as a third person. I find this
> very disrespectful.

Hi,

FWIW, I don't think that the phrasing of Peter's email is
disrespectful. As I read it, it simply states that the RMT has made a
decision to revert the patch unless certain assurances are given
before a certain date. I don't expect anyone will particularly like
receiving such an email, because nobody likes to be threatened with a
revert, but I don't think there is anything rude about it. Either you
are willing to commit to resolving the problem by a date that the RMT
finds acceptable, or you aren't. If you are, great. If you aren't, the
patch is going to get reverted. That sucks, but it's nothing against
you personally; it's just what happens sometimes. I also feel rather
strongly that being a member of the RMT is a pretty thankless task,
involving going through a lot of patches that you may not care about
and trying to make decisions that will benefit the project, even while
knowing that some people may not like them. We should give people who
are willing to offer such service the benefit of the doubt.

On the substance of the issue, one question that I have reading over
this thread is whether there's really a bug here at all. It is being
represented (and I have not checked whether this is accurate) that the
patch affects the behavior of DECLARE, PREPARE, and EXECUTE, but not
DESCRIBE, DEALLOCATE, DECLARE CURSOR .. FOR, or CREATE TABLE AS
EXECUTE. However, it also seems that it's not entirely clear what the
behavior ought to be in those cases, except perhaps for DESCRIBE. If
that's the case, maybe this doesn't really need to be an open item,
and maybe we don't therefore need to talk about whether it should be
reverted. Maybe it's just a feature that supports certain things now
and in the future, after due reflection, perhaps it will support more.

I would be interested in hearing your view, and that of others, on
whether this is really a bug at all.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com