On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 08:48, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> But in many cases, lack of good documentation makes even reviewing the patch
>> difficult. How do you determine if the patch works as intended, if you don't
>> know what it's supposed
On 26 September 2014 08:48, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> But in many cases, lack of good documentation makes even reviewing the patch
> difficult. How do you determine if the patch works as intended, if you don't
> know what it's supposed to do?
Exactly.
Lack of review and lack of consensus are
On 09/26/2014 01:07 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
My major reason to revert is the following: the documentation contains
no examples of real world usage, making the feature essentially
unusable out of the box.
I find this to be an interesting argument co
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> A revert wasn't requested by the individual who raised the concern (or,
> indeed, explicitly by *anyone*.. it was hinted at, but I felt the
> individuals who were hinting at it were leaving it up to that individual
> who had a concern), and
Simon,
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 23 September 2014 07:45, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > OTOH, if the patch is actually OK as it was committed, there's no point
> > reverting it only to commit it again later. At the end of the day, the
> > important thing is that the pat
On 23 September 2014 07:45, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 09:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas
>> wrote:
Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.
>>
>>
>> That s
Heikki,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
> Some random comments after a quick read-through of the patch:
Many thanks for this, again. I've pushed updates along with the fix for
relcache which was identified by the buildfarm.
Thanks,
Stephen
signat
All,
Robert and I had a great discussion on the phone where we were both
able to voice our concerns and feelings about RLS being pushed. By
way of summary, we agree that it was pushed ahead of its time and that
it should have waited for at least another review, which likely would
have h
On 09/22/2014 08:23 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Who decides if the patch is adequately reviewed?
>
> Author, Committer or Reviewer? In CF, that is comparatively clear
> that once Reviewer is satisfied, he marks the patch as
> Ready For Committer and then Committer picks up and if he is satisfied
> w
On 9/23/14, 9:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
I also think committers need to be much more careful when committing
patches which they (or their employer) appear to have a business
interest in. Rushing ahead to commit the patch of somebody 'unrelated'
leaves a completely different taste than committ
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> Regardless of what Robert may feel, review should only generally be
>>> *expected* during a commitfest, but it can be done at any tim
On 09/23/2014 11:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Regardless of what Robert may feel, review should only generally be
*expected* during a commitfest, but it can be done at any time.
Committers are free to commit at any time. The process was never
int
On 2014-09-23 16:16:18 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-09-23 13:23:32 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Just to be clear here, the *only* issue we should even be discussing
> >> is whether the patch should or should not have been committed in
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> Regardless of what Robert may feel, review should only generally be
>> *expected* during a commitfest, but it can be done at any time.
>> Committers are free to commit at any time. The proc
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> Regardless of what Robert may feel, review should only generally be
> *expected* during a commitfest, but it can be done at any time.
> Committers are free to commit at any time. The process was never
> intended to restrict what committers do or
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-23 13:23:32 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> Just to be clear here, the *only* issue we should even be discussing
>> is whether the patch should or should not have been committed in the
>> face of those objections. As Josh has also noted
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I'd be happy to discuss this with Stephen, either in person, by phone,
> or over public or private email.
Please understand that I'm not ignoring you, the conversation, or the
concern. I was asked (by other community members) to not comment
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 AM, David G Johnston
> wrote:
> > I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm
> not
> > seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion.
> > Especially since eve
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund
wrote:
> On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote
> > > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> > > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> > > on the fac
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 AM, David G Johnston
wrote:
> I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm not
> seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion.
> Especially since everything is being done publicly and you are one of the
> many peopl
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's obvious that a committer doesn't need to wait till some
> later commitfest to commit patches that have since gotten enough review
> or are uncontroversial. Neither is the case here.
Right. I mean, the occasionally-floated notio
On 2014-09-22 21:38:17 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote
> > It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> > committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> > on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> > mailin
On 2014-09-23 13:23:32 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Just to be clear here, the *only* issue we should even be discussing
> is whether the patch should or should not have been committed in the
> face of those objections. As Josh has also noted, the commitfest
> process was never meant to constrain what
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
>>>
>>> Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *
Heikki,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
> Some random comments after a quick read-through of the patch:
Glad you were able to find a bit of time to take a look, thanks!
> * Missing documentation. For a major feature like this, reference
> pages for the CREATE/DROP POLICY st
Some random comments after a quick read-through of the patch:
* Missing documentation. For a major feature like this, reference pages
for the CREATE/DROP POLICY statements are not sufficient. We'll need a
whole new chapter for this.
* In CREATE POLICY, the "USING" and "WITH CHECK" keywords ar
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> To make sure this doesn't just slip by without sufficient review, I'll add
> this to the next commitfest. It's a bit unusual to have a commitfest entry
> for something that's already been committed, but that's fine.
That seems sensible
On 09/23/2014 09:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.
That seems pretty straightforward, then. I think that it will have to
be reverted.
OTOH, if th
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>
> IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.
That seems pretty straightforward, then. I think that it will have to
be reverted.
> but I do feel that Stephen's feelings of being chastised
Robert Haas wrote
> It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> The CommitFests were never meant to restrict when a committer could
> commit a patch. The point of the CFs was to give committers time *off*
> from committing patches. If a committer wants to commit something
> completely outside of the CF pr
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
>>
>> Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest
>> started. And there wasn't a recent
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although
> > Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his
> > tone elsewhere). I must ask, though: what do you pr
On 09/22/2014 04:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I have no reason to doubt your version of events here (although
> Stephen may wish to address what you've said - I'm basing that on his
> tone elsewhere). I must ask, though: what do you propose to do about
> it in this instance? He has been chastise
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> This patch has been pushed in a clear violation of established policy.
>
> Fundamental pieces of the patch have changed *after* the commitfest
> started. And there wasn't a recent patch in the commitfest either - the
> entry was moved over fr
Hi,
I'm posting my reply to Stephen's mail at
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20140919163839.GH16422%40tamriel.snowman.net
in a new thread because I think it's a important discussion and many
people probably stopped following the RLS thread at some point.
On 2014-09-19 12:38:39 -0400, S
36 matches
Mail list logo
