Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 06:19:19PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Now I can see some people are annoyed, so I'm happy to apologize if
> I've done things that weren't understood or caused annoyance. Time is
> short at end of CF and tempers fray for us all.
>
> If Tom or Andres still feel that their concerns have not been
> addressed over the last few days, I am happy to revert the patch with
> no further discussion from me in this cycle.

Yep, I think the right thing, as you have just done, is to ask for clear
confirmation on revert, and accept whatever people say. I would revert
if anyone requests it.

To summarize how I see this patch, we have this workflow at the top of
the TODO list (which I think Simon helped with or suggested):

Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit

I think the MERGE patch spent a long time getting through the first and
second stages, and now the objections appear to be related to
implementation. I think the implementation issues only appeared during the
final commitfest, which made it feel like a new patch. Yes, it had been
through the first two stages before the final commitfest.

I think one of the missing rules we have is that when we say no new
large patches in the final commitfest, do we mean that all _three_
stages should be solidified before the final commitfest? I have never
been clear on that point.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +