From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: what to revert |
Date: | 2016-05-03 18:53:39 |
Message-ID: | c597bbe8-3980-1b3c-3922-913cff1edf21@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/03/2016 07:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature. Craig
>> was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical
>> changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking
>> ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts
>> that would use it. Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit
>> rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that
>> we can revisit it for 9.7.
>
> I think it's a positive development that we can take this attitude to
> reverting patches. It should not be seen as a big personal failure,
> because it isn't. Stigmatizing reverts incentivizes behavior that
> leads to bad outcomes.
>
Absolutely +1
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-05-03 18:57:13 | Re: what to revert |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-03 18:52:02 | Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject |