Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a latch to make startup process wake up and replay

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 12:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > I agree that asking people to stop work is not OK. However, I haven't
>> > asked for development work to stop, only that commits into that area
>> > stop until proper debate has taken place. Those might be minor commits,
>> > but they might not. Had I made those commits, they would have been
>> > called premature by others also.
>>
>> I do not believe that Heikki has done anything inappropriate.  We've
>> spent weeks discussing the latch facility and its various
>> applications.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but my comments were about this commit, not the one
> that happened on Saturday. This patch was posted about 32 hours ago, and
> the commit need not have taken place yet. If I had posted such a patch
> and committed it knowing other work is happening in that area we both
> know that you would have objected.

I've often felt that we ought to have a bit more delay between when
committers post patches and when they commit them.  I was told 24
hours and I've seen cases where people haven't even waited that long.
On the other hand, if we get to strict about it, it can easily get to
the point where it just gets in the way of progress, and certainly
some patches are far more controversial than others.  So I don't know
what the best thing to do is.  Still, I have to admit that I feel
fairly positive about the direction we're going with this particular
patch.  Clearing away these peripheral issues should make it easier
for us to have a rational discussion about the core issues around how
this is going to be configured and actually work at the protocol
level.

> It's not actually a major issue, but at some point I have to ask for no
> more commits, so Fujii and I can finish our patches, compare and
> contrast, so the best ideas can get into Postgres.

I don't think anyone is prepared to agree to that.  I think that
everyone is prepared to accept a limited amount of further delay in
pressing forward with the main part of sync rep, but I expect that no
one will be willing to freeze out incremental improvements in the
meantime, even if it does induce a certain amount of rebasing.  It's
also worth noting that Fujii Masao's patch has been around for months,
and yours isn't finished yet.  That's not to say that we don't want to
consider your ideas, because we do: and you've had more than your
share of good ones.  At the same time, it would be unfair and
unreasonable to expect work on a patch that is done, and has been done
for some time, to wait on one that isn't.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company