On 2017-01-26 16:55:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:37 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.
> I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to have an opinion any more.
> I'm saying that when somebody has an opinion that is different than
> yours, you should politely disagree with it rather than saying "WTF",
> which just as a reminder expands to "What The Fuck".  Frankly, I think
> WTF is generally not a particularly useful contribution to most
> discussions, but at the very least I think it should be used with some
> kind of context.  Sending an email that says "WTF" and nothing else
> conveys nothing other than that you don't respect the author of the
> email to which you are replying, and David's response was not so
> outlandish as to deserve that.  You might as well send an email that
> says "go dire in a fire".

The WTF wasn't about David wanting to go all in or not, but the way he
framed the general discussion.  And I do find it outlandish enough to
deserve that.  To me, especially with that methaphor and link, it still
reads as "you voted for it, even if phrased a lot more narrowly, so you
now get to eat all of it". *Especially* as it's a reply to me saying
that I'm concerned about my tepid yes to s/pg_xlog/pg_wal/ being used
for a larger change.

Using the normal ~concensus type of process for a mildly controversial
breaking change is fine with me.  I *personally* don't think it's worth
changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than
we're apparently willing to do.  I'm ok with loosing that argument.  I
just don't think the previous concensus for a narrower change can be
used for the wider one.


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

Reply via email to