On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

> On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
> wrote:
> > >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to
> concur
> > >> that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in.
> If
> > >> you want to vote to reject putting the whole camel in the tent I
> would say
> > >> its a vote for reverting the change that put the camel's nose in
> there in
> > >> the first place.
> > >
> > > WTF.
> >
> > I think that response is unwarranted.  I happen to agree entirely with
> > his position.
> I don't. Considering intent imo is important. David (and you?) is
> basically saying "screw it, you voted for that person, you aren't
> allowed to have an opinion anymore", and that's way outside of what I
> consider acceptable.  So, because you think it doesn't make sense to
> view renaming pg_xlog vs pg_wal as separate from a global s/xlog/wal/,
> nobody else can have that position.  And on top of that David's
> underlying that argument with a metaphor that basically implies the
> other party is getting screwed over.  Sorry, that's not the way I want
> decisions to be made here.

We can think or assume all we want about what people knew or did not know
when the prior consensus to commit the directory change was reached.  At
this point it doesn't matter.  The limited point I was trying to make is
that "the small change (i.e., the camel's nose) has been made (i.e., is now
in the tent)".  Yet here we are talking about the rest of the  camel.  We
have three options: go all-in, leave the status-quo, undo the previous

The past decision is immaterial and any knowledge/experience/opinions that
it may have entailed can now, on an individual basis, be neatly wrapped up
into a vote on one of those options.  No need to make assumptions about
how/why consensus on the previous decision was reached.  And, to be fair,
it is not an unreasonable assumption for Robert to make that having voted
for the small action that most of the well-informed persons on this list
were aware and implicitly understood that the underlying intent was not the
directory but rather removing "xlog" from our vocabulary and replacing it
with the more accurate "wal".  In that vein assumed consensus makes sense.

I didn't give as much credence to the "status quo" option in my original
response as I probably should have - because, frankly, I find it
unappealing.  I do accept that it is a valid position to hold, though.

David J.

Reply via email to