Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I understood the same. However, he didn't review or commit any of the
> bug fix patches that Thomas posted in May, or even respond to the
> mailing list threads. I eventually reviewed and committed them to
> avoid having the feature reverted; it took me only a few hours.
> Later, he said he would review the TransitionCaptureState patch Thomas
> posted at PGCon, later said again on-list that he would do so by
> Friday or anyway Monday, and it's now Thursday. In other words, I am
> not going just by this particular email, but by the fact that he
> hasn't committed so much as a one line bug fix or posted any reviews
> in a long time. The last non-reverted commit he made related to this
> feature was on April 6th, two days after the initial commit.

It does seem like Kevin could have done better there. However, I think
that Kevin was taking responsibility for the situation, and that it
wasn't accurate to suggest he blamed others. I thought his account of
the constraints that he operated under was a simple factual account.

I also don't think it's useful for you to discourage revert on the
grounds that it's a slippery slope. Admitting fault doesn't need to be
made any harder.

--
Peter Geoghegan