On 23 February 2017 at 17:27, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> What claims are you talking about? Which things have been exaggerated,
>> and by whom?
> * The specious argument that we should "just" have CREATE INDEX create
> equivalent indexes across partitions, to save all those people from
> writing all those scripts.
> The reality is that there are several ways that that would not comport
> with the existing design of things. Most obviously: where does that
> leave the design of global indexes that we eventually come up with?
> Now, maybe there is a good way to make this easier for users, worth
> doing sooner rather than later, but that will be subtle, and you
> should at least acknowledge that.

My argument was that CREATE INDEX is expected to just work on tables
at present, so should also just work on partitioned tables. Without
that, the reality is people will need to write scripts.

I don't see how that relates to the desire for multiple index options,
since one of them would need to be the default and we could provide
one in this release, one in the next etc..

> * "It leaves me asking what else is missing"... "If we wanted them to
> act identically we wouldn't have any need for a new feature at all, so
> clearly that doesn't make sense as an argument."
> These remarks sound imperious to me. I think that this could be quite
> demoralizing to someone in Amit's position, and you ought to give some
> consideration to that. I think that several of your remarks on the
> patch are facile and/or needlessly ambiguous, which is what makes this
> lack of tact seem unfair to me.

The current design has assumed many things, leading me to question
what else has been assumed.

Challenging those assumptions is important and has been upheld.

I agree my review comments could well be demoralizing, which is why I
said "Good work so far". It takes a while to realise that review
comments are given to patch authors with the intent to help improve
the product, not as personal attacks. I thought you would know that by

Imperious? No, definitely a Jedi.

> * "Good work so far, but there is still a very significant amount of
> work to do."
> There is always more work to do, so why say so? I think that the
> implication is that this isn't complete as a feature that goes into
> the next release, which I disagree with.

I've seen many patches rejected because they do not contain the
desired feature set, yet.

ISTM my opinion on when that is reached is as valid as yours or anyone
else's, so I'm unclear as to your issue.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to