Re: RLS feature has been committed

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>
> IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.

That seems pretty straightforward, then. I think that it will have to
be reverted.

> but I do feel that Stephen's feelings of being chastised
> aren't worth the bits they are printed on.

I believe that Stephen intended to convey taking that on the chin, as
he should - up to a point.

> We're here to develop
> software together, not to talk about our feelings; and the quality of
> the software we produce depends on our willingness to follow a set of
> procedures that are or should be well-understood by long-time
> contributors, not on our emotional states.

It also depends on trust, and mutual respect. We'd get very little
done without that.

> It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
> than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he
> wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else?

I think that this is excessive. Do you really believe that Stephen
thinks that, or means to assert that he has a blank check? If you
don't, then why say it? If you do, then the evidence is pretty thin on
the ground. You say "if this is allowed to stand" as if you think that
it might be - I don't think that it will.

If Stephen had a track record of recklessly committing things, then
I'd understand your use of such strong words. I don't think that he
does, though. You're jumping to the worst possible conclusion about
Stephen's motivations.

That having been said, I did go and look at the RLS thread, and
Stephen's commit did seem to be made in quite a bit more haste than I
first imagined. As someone that has an interest in PostgreSQL's
success in general, and as someone that has to wait for a long time to
get serious review of my work, I must say that that does annoy me. I
submitted a patch in March, that was finally marked "Ready for
Committer" by Michael Paquier about 2 months ago.

--
Peter Geoghegan