Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > contentious issue, a few days after the initial post. Hm. Not sure how
>> > you'd react if you weren't the author.
>>
>> Probably not very well. Do you want me to revert it?
>
> No. I want(ed) to express that I am not comfortable with how this got
> in. My aim wasn't to generate a flurry of responses with everybody
> piling on, or anything like that. But it's unfortunately hard to
> avoid. I wish I knew a way, besides only sending private mails. Which I
> don't think is a great approach either.
>
> I do agree that we need something to tackle this problem, and that this
> quite possibly is the least bad way to do this. And certainly the only
> one that's been implemented and posted with any degree of completeness.
>
> But even given the last paragraph, posting a complex new patch in a
> somewhat related thread, and then pushing it 5 days later is pretty darn
> quick.

Sorry. I understand your discomfort, and you're probably right. I'll
try to handle it better next time. I think my frustration with the
process got the better of me a little bit here. This patch may very
well not be perfect, but it's sure as heck better than doing nothing,
and if I'd gone out of my way to say "hey, everybody, here's a patch
that you might want to object to" I'm sure I could have found some
volunteers to do just that. But, you know, that's not really what I
want. What I want is somebody to do a detailed review and help me fix
whatever the problems the patch may have. And ideally, I'd like that
person to understand that you can't have parallel query without doing
something in this area - which I think you do, but certainly not
everybody probably did - and that a lot of simplistic, non-invasive
ideas for how to handle this are going to be utterly inadequate in
complex cases. Unless you or Noah want to take a hand, I don't expect
to get that sort of review. Now, that having been said, I think your
frustration with the way I handled it is somewhat justified, and since
you are not arguing for a revert I'm not sure what I can do except try
not to let my frustration get in the way next time. Which I will try
to do.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company