On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com> wrote:
> So given all this, I am not sure why people feel this patch was rushed
> through or has a flawed design. The comments from Andres while I am
> sure they have merit came before the commit but technically after the
> time when Simon said he was going to commit the patch (which he gave
> with 5 days notice). The patch was developed and reviewed in the
> community for many months. Pavan and Simon continue to respond on
> these comments and implementing changes people are requesting.
Simon attempted to present the initial version of this patch as more
or less finished, a point of view which others clearly did not share.
Over and over, people have raised concerns about things that the patch
should've handled and didn't. Lots of people, perhaps Peter foremost
among them, have expended lots of emails trying to get the most
obvious problems with this patch fixed. Eventually, we all get tired
of arguing. The burden of proof should be on Simon to show that this
patch is ready to commit and not on everyone else to show that isn't.
There are still issues that have been raised and not addressed, and
yet the patch was committed anyway -- in pieces -- and the reverted,
and then committed again -- still in pieces -- and then almost
immediately subject to a long series of follow-up commits fixing
various things -- but not all of the things that had been complained
about. Those things should've been fixed before the patch was
committed. Those things should have been fixed before Simon made a
statement of intention to commit. The things that haven't been fixed
yet should've been fixed then, too. And then the whole thing should
have gone in as one finished, completely-working feature in one
commit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company