On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> More generally, I don't think there's ever a >> time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at >> least some effort into fixing up afterwards. > > Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found > now exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for > a stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been > putting in". I think it's clear that Kevin is willing to put in some > work. The issue is that he is unable to *guarantee* that he'll be able > to put in *sufficient* time, and in light of that concedes that it > might be best to revert and revisit for Postgres 11. He is being > cautious, and does not want to *risk* unduly holding up the release. > > That was my understanding, at least.
I understood the same. However, he didn't review or commit any of the bug fix patches that Thomas posted in May, or even respond to the mailing list threads. I eventually reviewed and committed them to avoid having the feature reverted; it took me only a few hours. Later, he said he would review the TransitionCaptureState patch Thomas posted at PGCon, later said again on-list that he would do so by Friday or anyway Monday, and it's now Thursday. In other words, I am not going just by this particular email, but by the fact that he hasn't committed so much as a one line bug fix or posted any reviews in a long time. The last non-reverted commit he made related to this feature was on April 6th, two days after the initial commit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers