| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 17:12:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTzMC4zrRJBma2tawQSUYLs5mj74tcD=vSgB_dkDG9wWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature. Craig
> was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical
> changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking
> ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts
> that would use it. Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit
> rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that
> we can revisit it for 9.7.
I think it's a positive development that we can take this attitude to
reverting patches. It should not be seen as a big personal failure,
because it isn't. Stigmatizing reverts incentivizes behavior that
leads to bad outcomes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-05-03 17:19:39 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-03 17:08:28 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |