On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 11:41:13AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > What I'm upset about is that it feels to me like Nikolay is trying to > win the argument by yelling. I don't want that to be the way we do > things around here. I admit that sometimes it is, and I think that is > bad, no matter who the yeller is and who is getting yelled at. People > get upset, including me, and that is life, but whether people are > upset should never be the determinant of what goes into the tree.
+1 > I have no > problem with a rational discussion of what the best option is here, > but I am absolutely not OK with vitriolic rhetoric about how things > are awful when, AFAICS, nothing has happened here beyond the totally > routine. +1 > In a certain sense, the damage here has already been done. > Nathan has already had to spend a significant amount of time engaging > with this thread over what I think should be a complete non-event, and > will probably have to spend more, and all that takes away from time > that could, for example, be spent reviewing and committing other > patches. And for what? I've debated bringing this up, but this has been the most frustrating part of the discussion for me. While I'm trying to responsibly commit a couple of other big patches for v18 (for which I am not the primary author), I'm also spending a huge amount of time trying to have some sort of rational discussion about a handful of lines of code that seem to work just fine. FWIW one of the big reasons I didn't proceed with the enum approach initially is because I worried that I'd end up in a similar discussion about how terrible _that_ approach is. When I look at that patch [0], I genuinely wonder if folks would accept that without the isset_offset context. Maybe I misjudged... > If it ever happens that the design decision that this patch made > caused a real problem, some future patch could have reverted it and > substituted something else and probably nobody would have cared. Even > now, if some committer other than Nathan cares enough to change > something here, I doubt that Nathan will really care. But I cannot see > any world in which pinning Nathan beyond a barrel and demanding action > is a win for the project overall. If we argued this much about every > design detail of my patches, I would have quit working on this project > long ago. I change others' code all the time, and I fully expect that people will change my code from time to time, too. The vacuum_truncate code is no exception. As long as it advances the project in some way, I'm happy. [0] https://postgr.es/m/attachment/174762/v2-0001-change-vacuum_truncate-relopt-to-enum.patch -- nathan
