Re: RLS Design

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Brightwell, Adam" <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yeb(dot)havinga(at)portavita(dot)nl>
Subject: Re: RLS Design
Date: 2014-09-19 16:38:39
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Alright, updated patch attached which does just that (thanks to Adam
> > for the updates for this and testing pg_dump- I just reviewed it and
> > added some documentation updates and other minor improvements), and
> > rebased to master. Also removed the catversion bump, so it should apply
> > cleanly for people, for a while anyway.
> I specifically asked you to hold off on committing this until there
> was adequate opportunity for review, and explained my reasoning. You
> committed it anyway.

Hum- my apologies, I honestly don't recall you specifically asking for
it to be held off indefinitely. :( There was discussion back and
forth, quite a bit of it with you, and I thank you for your help with
that and certainly welcome any additional comments.

> This patch, on the other hand, was massively revised after the start
> of the CommitFest after many months of inactivity and committed with
> no thorough review by anyone who was truly independent of the
> development effort. It was then committed with no warning over a
> specific request, from another committer, that more time be allowed
> for review.

I would not (nor do I feel that I did..) have committed it over a
specific request to not do so from another committer. I had been hoping
that there would be another review coming from somewhere, but there is
always a trade-off between waiting longer to get a review ahead of a
commit and having it committed and then available more easily for others
to work with, review, and generally moving forward.

> I'm really disappointed by that. I feel I'm essentially getting
> punished for trying to follow what I understand to the process, which
> has involved me doing huge amounts of review of other people's patches
> and waiting a very long time to get my own stuff committed, while you
> bull ahead with your own patches.

While I wasn't public about it, I actually specifically discussed this
question with others, a few times even, to try and make sure that I
wasn't stepping out of line by moving forward.

That said, I do see that Andres feels similairly. It certainly wasn't
my intent to surprise anyone by it but simply to continue to move
forward- in part, to allow me to properly break from it and work on
other things, including reviewing other patches in the commitfest.
I fear I've simply been overly focused on it these past few weeks, for a
variety of reasons that would likely best be discussed at the pub.

All-in-all, I feel appropriately chastised and certainly don't wish to
be surprising fellow committers. Perhaps we can discuss at the dev



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2014-09-19 16:45:41 Re: RLS Design
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-09-19 16:32:30 Re: RLS Design