Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:21 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I can't imagine why you feel it necessary to communicate with me like
> this. This is just vitriol, lacking any substance.

John's email is pretty harsh, but I can understand why he's frustrated.

I told you that I did not agree with your dislike for the term
wraparound and I explained why. You sent a couple more emails telling
me that I was wrong and, frankly, saying a lot of things that seem
only tangentially related to the point that I was actually making. You
seem to expect other people to spend a LOT OF TIME trying to
understand what you're trying to say, but you don't seem to invest
similar effort in trying to understand what they're trying to say. I
couldn't even begin to grasp what your point was until Maciek stepped
in to explain, and I still don't really agree with it, and I expect
that no matter how many emails I write about that, your position won't
budge an iota.

It's really demoralizing. If I just vote -1 on the patch set, then I'm
a useless obstruction. If I actually try to review it, we'll exchange
100 emails and I won't get anything else done for the next two weeks
and I probably won't feel much better about the patch at the end of
that process than at the beginning. I don't see that I have any
winning options here.

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