Re: what to revert

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: what to revert
Date: 2016-05-03 18:53:39
Message-ID: c597bbe8-3980-1b3c-3922-913cff1edf21@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/03/2016 07:12 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> 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.
>

Absolutely +1

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2016-05-03 18:57:13 Re: what to revert
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-05-03 18:52:02 Re: pg_upgrade and toasted pg_largeobject