Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not going to pretend that all review comments are constructive,
> but I also think that to some degree the difference between these two
> things depends on your perspective. I recall, in particular, the
> email that prompted the famous "in short: -1 from me regards tom lane"
> T-shirt, which I believe to be this one:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28927.1236820868@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> That's not a positive review, but when it comes down to it, it's a
> pretty factual email. IMHO, anyway, and YMMV.

This email is not saying anything about the patch's content, not
offering any judgement ("you did it the wrong way"), it is all about
offering some pieces of advice on the complexity of SET and RESET.

> My own experience is different from yours, I guess. I actually like
> it when I post a patch, or suggest a concept, and Tom fires back with
> a laundry list of reasons it won't work. It often induces me to step
> back and approach the same problem from a different and better angle,
> and the result is often better for it. What I don't like is when I

What I was talking about is judgements on a patch the commenter didn't
read. Being offered advices by people in the know is awesome, and if
that happens early in the patch life (design), it's even better.

> (or anyone) posts a patch and somebody says something that boils down
> to "no one wants that". *That* ticks me off. Because you know what?
> At a minimum, *I* want that. If I didn't, I wouldn't have written a
> patch. And usually, the customers I support want that, too. Now,
> somebody else may not want it, and that is fine. But IMHO, posting a
> patch should be considered prima facie evidence of non-zero demand for
> the associated feature.

That part reminds me too much of the Inline Extension patch series for
me to comment any further.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support