Re: scary patch contest

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 2:13 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > #2 has been cut back in scope enough that I don't think we would have accepted
> > the feature originally if it had been subject to those limitations, which IMHO
> > is a reasonable argument for a revert but also not conclusive.
>
> I don't think that is an argument for reverting, I think it's an argument for
> blocking progress by making perfect the enemy of good.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. My guess is that
you're arguing that we should have been willing to take REPACK
CONCURRENTLY even if we'd known from the beginning that the
one-at-a-time-per-cluster restriction would have been necessary. I
would have argued against that, but perhaps I would have been wrong to
do so, and it's certainly fair if you feel otherwise.

> > I'm pretty scared about all of #1-#3 having a long tail of bugs that we haven't
> > found yet, in pretty critical areas.
>
> I'll prepare a revert.

My sincere intention was to start a conversation, not jump straight to
a conclusion. If you were already half-convinced that you should be
thinking about reverting and this pushed you over the line, I suppose
that's fair enough. Otherwise, I think some discussion would be a good
idea.

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