Re: pgsql: Avoid archiving XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS on idle server

On 6 April 2016 at 12:24, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed
> >> without any real discussions..
> >
> > Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context.
> >
> > The patches under review in the CF are too invasive and not worth the
> > trouble for such a minor problem. After full review, I would simply
> reject
> > those patches (already discussed on list).
> >
> > Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch
> that
> > does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable.
> > Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and
> to
> > allow you to backpatch a solution.
> >
> > We can, if you wish, revert this patch. If we do, we will have nothing,
> > since I object to the other patch(es).
>
> I don't think you have an absolute veto over other patches

Huh? My understanding is I have the same powers as other committers, no
more but also, no less. If you've seen me claim otherwise, please point
where that happened.

Me saying "I object" seems to attract more attention than others for some
reason. Why is it a discussion point that I object to a patch, whereas if
you do it, thats fine?

, though you
> certainly have the right to object, and you certainly don't have to
> commit them yourself. But even more than that, the fact that you
> don't like those other patches does not mean that you can commit
> something without discussion. Even if every argument you are making
> here is correct, which I'm not sure about, other people obviously
> don't think so. That stuff should be worked out, as far as possible,
> in pre-commit review, which is only possible when you post the patch
> before committing it. I think it is fine to commit things
> occasionally without posting them ahead of time if they are obviously
> uncontroversial, but that isn't the case here.
>

All very strange. People commit changes they didn't post all the time,
especially on minor bugs such as this.

Obviously if I knew that it would be controversial I would not have done
it. We are discussing it now, so I don't see any problem.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services