Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 9:54 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> No, I've appreciated constructive feedback from both Tom and David on
> this thread. Your original email was so incredibly strongly worded
> (and contained no constructive recommendations about a better path
> forward, unlike Tom's and David's replies), and I had a hard time
> understanding what could possibly have made you that irritated with a
> proposal to document how to avoid long-running table scans while
> holding an exclusive lock.

I don't think I was particularly irritated then, but I admit I'm
getting irritated now. I clearly said that the documentation wasn't
perfect but that I didn't think these patches made it better, and I
explained why in some detail. It's not like I said "you suck and I
hate you and please go die in a fire" or something like that. So why
is that "incredibly strongly worded"? Especially when both David and
Tom agreed with my recommendation that we reject these patches as
proposed?

There are probably patches in this CommitFest that have gotten no
review from anyone, but it's pretty hard to find them, because the
CommitFest is full of patches like this one, which have been reviewed
fairly extensively yet which, for one reason or another, don't seem
likely to go anywhere any time soon. I think that's a much bigger
problem for the project than the lack of documentation on this
particular issue. Of course, you will likely disagree.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com