Re: Additional options for Sync Replication
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTimvkOwo9zeOznZ+0g2w4BO3EbF2e3OH25fuMs=Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Additional options for Sync Replication (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: >> So the rules are not the same for commiter patches and contributor >> patches, and there's no good in trying to have them the same or >> pretending they are. In particular, only commiters are able to finish >> and polish the work between the last commit fest and beta, and then they >> will be on the hook to get to release candidate and release. >> >> But you know all that better than I do. > > Committers can and do get away with slipping things in later than > non-committers, and to some extent that's OK for the reasons you > mention. But Alvaro was very gracious in conceding that it was a bit > too late to push in his key lock patch, as was his employer, JD. They > didn't like it, but they accepted that it was necessary to move the > community, overall, forward, and to avoid a really long beta period > during which, really, nobody gets to do anything at all interesting. > We cannot have one standard for features that CommandPrompt really > wants committed and a different standard for features that 2ndQuadrant > or, say, EnterpriseDB, really want committed. > > I completely disagree that committers are the only ones who can finish > and polish work between the last CommiFest and beta. Fujii Masao, > Kevin Grittner, Yeb Havinga, and Yamamoto Takashi all come to mind as > people who have been very, very helpful in moving us toward beta > through careful testing and code review. I have no fear at all about > our ability to maintain SSI even though there is not one committer who > fully understands it all, because every bug report that comes in gets > a response within hours and a patch within days. The limiting factor > there has actually been how long it's taken someone to look and test > those patches, not how quickly they've been produced. I think the > reality is exactly the other way around: committers are not the people > who get the opportunity to fix other people's bugs; they are the > people who are *expected* to fix other people's bugs when no one else > will. If it's your perception that the (mostly quite minor) changes > that I've made to sync rep are somehow for purposes of > self-aggrandizement or a desire to micromanage everything that happens > in the backend, then I'm sorry for that. I'll readily admit that I > have strong opinions on lots of topics, especially but not only > PostgreSQL-related topics; but I would be way happier to have spent > the last couple of weeks developing new features than swatting bugs. > Had I done that, though, I think that not as many bugs would have > gotten swatted. So I did it. Whether that makes me a helpful > community guy who tries to ensure a quality release or a total jerk > who interjects his nose into other people's business is, of course, a > matter of opinion. > > Even today, anyone who would like to write a patch to address more > than one of the open items is more than welcome to do so, and I would > really appreciate it, even I or someone else ends up having to adjust > it a bit before committing. There are at least three issues on the > open items list that are obvious candidates for someone to pick up: > > - fix attinhcount tracking > - Typed-tables patch broke pg_upgrade > - comments on SQL/MED objects > > I volunteered to pick up the last one, but I'd be more than happy if > the person who reported the problem had already provided the patch. > Or if someone else wanted to write the patch. That would be awesome. > In my view, the question we should be asking ourselves here is not - > why are Tom and Robert getting to make all these commits? - but - > where is everybody else who should be helping out? If the answer is > "well we don't have time to work on this because we all have day jobs > we have to do to get paid", then I accept that. But that moves > getting to commit changes at a late date from the "privilege" bucket > into the "responsibility" bucket. Robert, Everybody wants us to be polite and respectful with each other. Writing such long emails seems to be just filibustering to me. I doubt anyone has read and considered every word, there are just too many. A form of disrespect. Main thing I note is that you could have reviewed my patch in the time its taken to discuss these procedural "issues". Why are they more important? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: