Re: RLS Design

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
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 16:50:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaX+ptioOxx42rxJxsgrvxPfUVyndkpeR0JsRiTeZ36Ng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> 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.

Well, you're wrong. How could this email possibly have been any more clear?

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYA=uixXmN390SFgfQgVmLL-As5bJaL0oM7yrpPVwNPxQ@mail.gmail.com

You can hardly tell me you didn't see that email when you incorporated
the technical content into the next patch version.

> 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.

And yet you completely ignored the only public commentary on the
issue, which was from me.

I *should not have had* to object to this patch going in. It was
clearly untimely for the August CommitFest, and as a long-time
community member, you ought to know full well that any such patch
should be resubmitted to a later CommitFest. This patch sat on the
shelf for 4 months because you were too busy to work on it, and was
committed 5 days from the last posted version, which version had zero
review comments. If you didn't have time to work on it for 4 months,
you can hardly expect everyone else who has an opinion to comment
within 5 days.

But, you know, because I could tell that you were fixated on pushing
this patch through to commit quickly, I took the time to send you a
message on that specific point, even though you should have known full
well. In fact I took the time to send TWO. Here's the other one:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobqO0z87EiVfDEwjCac1dC4ahh5wCVoQoxrSaTeU1T-RA@mail.gmail.com

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

No, I think we should discuss it right now, not nine months from now
when the issue has faded from everyone's mind.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-09-19 16:54:12 Re: RLS Design
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-09-19 16:48:58 Re: RLS Design