Hi, On 2016-06-06 15:16:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > Why would they have to write the complex query? Wouldn't they just > >> > need to run that we wrote for them? > > > > Then write that query. Verify that that query performs halfway > > reasonably fast. Document that it should be run against databases after > > subjecting them to tests. That'd address my concern as well. > > You know, I am starting to lose a teeny bit of patience here.
Same here. > I do appreciate you reviewing this code, very much, and genuinely, and > it would be great if more people wanted to review it. > But this kind of reads like you think that I'm being a jerk, which I'm > trying pretty hard not to be I don't think you're a jerk. But I am loosing a good bit of my patience here. I've posted these issues a month ago, and for a long while the only thing that happened was bikeshedding about the name of something that wasn't even decided to happen yet (obviously said bikeshedding isn't your fault). > and like you have the right to tell assign me arbitrary work, which I > think you don't. It's not like adding a parameter for this would be a lot of work, there's even a patch out there. I'm getting impatient because I feel the issue of this critical feature not being testable is getting ignored and/or played down. And then sidetracked into a general "let's add a database consistency checker" type discussion. Which we need, but won't get in 9.6. If you say: "I agree with the feature in principle, but I don't want to spend time to review/commit it." - ok, that's fair enough. But at the moment that isn't what I'm reading between the lines. > If you want to have a > reasonable conversation about what the options are for making this > better, great. Yes, I want that. > If you want to me to do some work to help improve things on a patch I > committed, that is 100% fair. But I don't know what I did to earn > this response which, to me, reads as rather demanding and rather > exasperated. I don't think it's absurd to make some demands on the committer of a impact-heavy feature, about at least finding a realistic path towards the new feature being realistically testable. This is a scary (but *REALLY IMPORTANT*) patch, and I don't understand why it's ok that we can't push a it through a couple wraparounds under high concurrency, and easily verify that the freeze map is in sync with the actual data. And yes, I *am* exasperated, that I'm the only one that appears to be scared by the lack of that capability. I think the feature is in a *lot* better shape than multixacts, but it certainly has the potential to do even more damage in ways that'll essentially be unrecoverable. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers