Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > While I understand that you'd like to separate the concerns between > > changing the renaming scheme and changing the default and enabling this > > option, I don't agree that they can or should be independently > > considered. > > Well, I don't understand what you think is going to happen here. Neither > Beena nor any other contributor you don't employ is obliged to write a > patch for those changes because you'd like them to get made, and Peter and > I have already voted against including them. If you or David want to write > a patch for those changes, post it for discussion, and try to get consensus > to commit it, that's of course your right. But the patch will be more than > three weeks after the feature freeze deadline and will have two committer > votes against it from the outset.
This would clearly be an adjustment to the submitted patch, which happens regularly during the review and commit process and is part of the commitfest process, so I don't agree that holding it to new-feature level is correct when it's a change which is entirely relevant to this new feature, and one which a committer is asking to be included as part of the change. Nor do I feel particularly bad about asking for feature authors to be prepared to rework parts of their feature based on feedback during the commitfest process. I would have liked to have realized this oddity with the WAL naming scheme for not-16MB-WALs earlier too, but it's unfortunately not within my abilities to change that. That does not mean that we shouldn't be cognizant of the impact that this new feature will have in exposing this naming scheme, one which there seems to be agreement is bad, to users. That said, David is taking a look at it to try and be helpful. Vote-counting seems a bit premature given that there hasn't been any particularly clear asking for votes. Additionally, I believe Peter also seemed concerned that the existing naming scheme which, if used with, say, 64MB segments, wouldn't match LSNs either, in this post: 9795723f-b4dd-f9e9-62e4-ddaf6cd88...@2ndquadrant.com Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature