From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE |
Date: | 2018-04-07 17:19:19 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jK6JV8eaYZDmyyhWpZRrOpGahPTsmNUT79n4pBqr5ufpA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 6 April 2018 at 17:22, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 09:21:54AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 5 April 2018 at 21:02, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Simon, you have three committers in this thread suggesting this patch be
>> > reverted. Are you just going to barrel ahead with the fixes without
>> > addressing their emails?
>>
>> PeterG confirms that the patch works and has the agreed concurrency
>> semantics. Separating out the code allows us to see clearly that we
>> have almost complete test coverage of the code and its features.
>
> My point was that people didn't ask you to work harder on fixing the
> patch, but in reverting it. You can work harder on fixing things in the
> hope they change their minds, but again, that isn't addressing their
> request.
I had understood Tom's post to be raising a discussion about whether to revert.
In my understanding, Tom's complaints were addressed quickly, against
what he expected - I was surprised myself at how quickly Pavan was
able to address them.
That left Andres' complaints, which as I explained hadn't been given
in any detail. Once given, Pavan investigated Andres' complaints and
explained in detail the results of his work and that he doesn't see
how the proposed changes would improve anything.
If there was anything unresolvable before commit I wouldn't have
committed it, or unresolvable after commit I would already have
reverted it.
And as I explained, this commit was not rushed and various other
negative points made are unfortunately not correct.
Now I can see some people are annoyed, so I'm happy to apologize if
I've done things that weren't understood or caused annoyance. Time is
short at end of CF and tempers fray for us all.
If Tom or Andres still feel that their concerns have not been
addressed over the last few days, I am happy to revert the patch with
no further discussion from me in this cycle.
If request to revert occurs, I propose to do this on Wed 11 pm, to
avoid getting in the way of other commits and because it will take
some time to prepare to revert.
Thanks to everyone for review comments and well done to Pavan,
whatever we decide.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-07 17:22:07 | Re: pgsql: Fix timing issue in new subscription truncate test |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-07 17:03:22 | Re: pgsql: Fix timing issue in new subscription truncate test |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-04-07 17:33:53 | Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2018-04-07 17:09:11 | Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask |