On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:26 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>>> This patch is in need of a committer.  Any takers?
>>> I didn't see a lot of enthusiasm from committers on the thread
>> Stephen at least has showed interest.
>>> so if nobody picks it up by the end of the CF I'm going to mark the patch 
>>> RWF.
>> Yes, that makes sense. If no committer is willing to have a look at
>> code-level and/or has room for this patch then it is as good as
>> doomed. Except for bug fixes, I have a couple of other patches that
>> are piling up so they would likely get the same treatment. There is
>> nothing really we can do about that.
> Before we reach the question of whether committers have time to look
> at this, we should first consider the question of whether it has
> achieved consensus.  I'll try to summarize the votes:
> Tom Lane: premise pretty dubious
> Robert Haas: do we even want this?
> Peter Eisentraut: I had voiced a similar concern [to Robert's] previously
> Albe Laurenz: I think we should have that
> Andres Freund: [Tom's counterproposal won't work]
> Robert Haas: [Andres has a good point, still nervous] I'm not sure
> there's any better alternative to what's being proposed, though.
> Fujii Masao: One idea is to provide the utility or extension which
> fsync's the specified files and directories
> Here's an attempt to translate those words into numerical votes.  As
> per my usual practice, I will count the patch author as +1:
> Michael Paquier: +1
> Tom Lane: -1
> Peter Eisentraut: -1
> Albe Laurenz: +1
> Andres Freund: +1
> Robert Haas: +0.5
> Fujii Masao: -0.5
> So, my interpretation is that, out of 7 votes, we have -2.5 and +3.5.
> Perhaps that is a consensus for proceeding, but if so it's a pretty
> marginal one.  I think the next step for this patch is to consider why
> we shouldn't, in lieu of what's proposed here, add a pg_fsync utility
> that fsyncs a file or recursively fsyncs a directory, ship that, and
> let people use it on their pg_dump files and/or base backups if they
> wish.  I am not altogether convinced that's a better option, but I am
> also not altogether convinced that it's worse.  Also, if anyone else
> wishes to vote, or if anyone to whom I've attributed a vote wishes to
> assign a numerical value to their vote other than the one I've
> assigned, please feel free.

Not completely exact by including this message:
If I interpret this message correctly Stephen Frost can be counted
with either +1 or +0.5.

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

Reply via email to