Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:02:20PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Simon, you have three committers in this thread suggesting this patch be
>> reverted. Are you just going to barrel ahead with the fixes without
>> addressing their emails?
>
> If my opinion counts, please count me in this bucket as well. I have
> seen also Peter G. commenting about the design of the patch in a very
> advanced way and emit doubts, this is enough to convince me that
> something wrong is going on here. I have to admit that I did not look
> at the patch in details but the design issues for the executor and
> parser mentioned show that some low-level considerations have not been
> taken into account, so this is worrying.

Apologies for butting in here as it is not my place. Just a rather
timid introduction, I have met most of you and am a huge fan all of
you. I have been reading hackers for many years. I will follow up with
a response in a vein similar to Michael's, if my opinion counts,
which it probably does not, since this is my first post to hackers
ever:

I have read the thread from the start and I don't think this is a
fair characterization of Peter's feedback. I would say initially yes
that would be a fair statement. However, in past 4-6 weeks I
interpreted his feedback as supportive. FWIW, I haven't read the patch
either and it would be of little value if I did :-).

Pavan did respond to all Peter's issues and implement all Peter's
requested changes and at one point spent a lot of time looking at and
reporting back on how another database handle certain situations with
MERGE so he could incorporate the proper behavior into Postgres and
properly respond to Peter's concerns. The community at large
requirements that MERGE support RLS and Partitioning were implemented
and Steven Frost reviewed the RLS implementation. The sqlsmith team
did extensive testing of the patch.

So given all this, I am not sure why people feel this patch was rushed
through or has a flawed design. The comments from Andres while I am
sure they have merit came before the commit but technically after the
time when Simon said he was going to commit the patch (which he gave
with 5 days notice). The patch was developed and reviewed in the
community for many months. Pavan and Simon continue to respond on
these comments and implementing changes people are requesting.

> --
> Michael

--
Thomas John Kincaid