On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> I'm okay with prohibiting the case of different persistence values as
> you suggest.  And I do suggest to back-patch that prohibition to pg10.

I disagree.  There's nothing any more broken about the way this works
with partitioning in v10 than the way it works with inheritance in 9.6
or prior.  Table inheritance has had warts for years, and the fact
that we now have table partitioning doesn't make all of those same
warts into must-fix-now bugs.  They are still just warts, and they
should be cleaned up through future development as we find them and
have the time to do something about them.  They should be documented
as incompatibilities where appropriate.  They should not be jammed
into stable branches because users don't like it when DDL works one
way in 10.1 and another way in 10.2.  They don't even really like it
when 10.0 works differently from 11.0, but you have to be willing to
see bad decisions revisited at some point if you want progress to
happen, and I certainly do.

> Let me add that I'm not looking to blame anyone for what I report here.
> I'm very excited about the partitioning stuff and I'm happy of what was
> done for pg10.  I'm now working on more partitioning-related changes
> which means I review the existing code as I go along, so I just report
> things that look wrong to me as I discover them, just with an interest
> in seeing them fixed, or documented, or at least discussed and
> explicitly agreed upon.

Fair enough, but when you reply on the thread where I committed the
patch and propose back-patching to the release that contained it, you
make it sound like it's a bug in the patch, and I don't think either
of the two things you just raised are.  My complaint is not that I
think you are accusing me of any sort of wrongdoing but that you're
trying to justify back-patching what I think is new development by
characterizing it as a bug fix.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to