Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> It does seem like Kevin could have done better there. However, I think
> that Kevin was taking responsibility for the situation, and that it
> wasn't accurate to suggest he blamed others. I thought his account of
> the constraints that he operated under was a simple factual account.
>
> I also don't think it's useful for you to discourage revert on the
> grounds that it's a slippery slope. Admitting fault doesn't need to be
> made any harder.

I am not sure that I entirely agree with you on these points, but I
don't want to debate it further and especially not on a public mailing
list. I'm going to spend some time over the next ~24 hours studying
this thread and the patches and determining whether or not I'm willing
to take responsibility for this patch. If I decide that I am, I will
then work on trying to fix the technical problems. If I decide that I
am not, then I think it will be necessary to take Kevin up on his
offer to revert, unless some other committer volunteers. (Of course,
anyone could step in to do the work, as Thomas already has to a
considerable degree, but without a committer involved it doesn't fix
the problem.)

I don't really like either option, because, on the one hand, this is a
pretty invasive thing to go rip out -- maybe we don't have to rip out
the entire patch series, but just some of the later patches? -- and on
the other hand, keeping it in the tree will require work, and I'm
busy. But there don't seem to be any other options.

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