Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 1:25 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That is somewhat fair, but it is also a lot of work. There are
> multiple people asking for you to revert things on multiple threads,
> and figuring out all of the revert requests and trying to come to some
> consensus about what should be done in each case is going to take an
> enormous amount of time. I know you've done lots of good work on
> PostgreSQL in the past and I respect that, but I think you also have
> to realize that you're asking other people to spend a LOT of time
> figuring out what to do about the current situation. I see Andres has
> posted more specifically about what he thinks should happen to each of
> the table AM patches and I am willing to defer to his opinion, but we
> need to make some quick decisions here to either keep things or take
> them out. Extensive reworks after feature freeze should not be an
> option that is on the table; that's what makes it a freeze.

Alexander has been sharply criticized for acting in haste, pushing
work in multiple areas when it was clearly not ready. And that seems
proportionate to me. I agree that he showed poor judgement in the past
few months, and especially in the past few weeks. Not just on one
occasion, but on several. That must have consequences.

> I also do not think I really believe that there's been so much stuff
> committed that a blanket revert would be all that hard to carry off,
> if that were the option that the community ended up preferring.

It seems to me that emotions are running high right now. I think that
it would be a mistake to act in haste when determining next steps.
It's very important, but it's not very urgent.

I've known Alexander for about 15 years. I think that he deserves some
consideration here. Say a week or two, to work through some of the
more complicated issues -- and to take a breather. I just don't see
any upside to rushing through this process, given where we are now.

--
Peter Geoghegan