On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 01:05:03PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-04 21:55:29 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:03:21PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > Sorry, but I really just want to see these changes as iterative patches
> >> > ontop of 9.5/HEAD instead of this process. I won't revert the reversion
> >> > if you push it anyway, but I think it's a rather bad idea.
> >>
> >> I hear you.
> >
> > Not just me.
> >
> >> I evaluated your request and judged that the benefits you cited
> >> did not make up for the losses I cited.  Should you wish to change my mind,
> >> your best bet is to find defects in the commits I proposed.  If I 
> >> introduced
> >> juicy defects, that discovery would lend much weight to your conjectures.
> >
> > I've absolutely no interest in "proving you wrong". And my desire to
> > review patches that are in a, in my opinion, barely reviewable format is
> > pretty low as well.
> I agree.  Noah, it seems to me that you are offering a novel theory of
> how patches should be submitted, reviewed, and committed, but you've
> got three people, two of them committers, telling you that we don't
> like that approach.  I seriously doubt you're going to find anyone who
> does.

Andres writing the patch that became commit 4f627f8 and you reviewing it were
gifts to Alvaro and to the community.  Aware of that, I have avoided[1] saying
that I was shocked to see that commit's defects.  Despite a committer-author
and _two_ committer reviewers, the patch was rife with wrong new comments,
omitted updates to comments it caused to become wrong, and unsolicited
whitespace churn.  (Anyone could have missed the data loss bug, but these
collectively leap off the page.)  This in beleaguered code critical to data
integrity.  You call this thread's latest code a patch submission, but I call
it bandaging the tree after a recent commit that never should have reached the
tree.  Hey, if you'd like me to post the traditional patch files, that's easy.
It would have been easier for me.  I posted branches because it gives more
metadata to guide review.  As for the choice to revert and redo ...

> When stuff gets committed to the tree, people want to to be
> able to answer the question "what has just now changed?" and it is
> indisputable that what you want to do here will make that harder.

I hope those who have not already read commit 4f627f8 will not waste time
reading it.  They should instead ignore multixact changes from commit 4f627f8
through its revert.  The 2015-09-26 commits have not appeared in a supported
release, and no other work has built upon them.  They have no tenure.  (I am
glad you talked the author out of back-patching; otherwise, 9.4.5 and 9.3.10
would have introduced a data loss bug.)  Nobody reported a single defect
before my review overturned half the patch.  A revert will indeed impose on
those who invested time to understand commit 4f627f8, but the silence about
its defects suggests the people understanding it number either zero or one.
Even as its author and reviewers, you would do better to set aside what you
thought you knew about this code.

> That's not a one-time problem for Andres during the course of review;
> that is a problem for every single person who looks at the commit
> history from now until the end of time.

It's a service to future readers that no line of "git blame master <...>" will
refer to a 2015-09-26 multixact commit.  Blame reports will instead refer to
replacement commits designed to be meaningful for study in isolation.  If I
instead structured the repairs as you ask, the blame would find one of 4f627f8
or its various repair commits, none of which would be a self-contained unit of
development.  What's to enjoy about discovering that history?

> I don't think you have the
> right to force your proposed approach through in the face of concerted
> opposition.

That's correct; I do not have that right.  Your objection still worries me.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to