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. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers