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: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170123050248.go18...@tamriel.snowman.net If I interpret this message correctly Stephen Frost can be counted with either +1 or +0.5. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
