On 23 September 2014 07:45, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 09:15 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should RLS be reverted, and revisited in a future CF?
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, that would be entirely appropriate.
>>
>>
>> That seems pretty straightforward, then. I think that it will have to
>> be reverted.
>
>
> OTOH, if the patch is actually OK as it was committed, there's no point
> reverting it only to commit it again later. At the end of the day, the
> important thing is that the patch gets sufficient review. Clearly Stephen
> thinks that it did, while you and Andres do not.
I would observe that not requesting a revert would be inconsistent
against all other situations I have seen or been involved with.
Stephen has acted against explicit requests not to commit. I think
Robert should apply more care about issuing lock instructions, since
the concurrency of our community is important, but nonetheless, an
explicit request was made and that should be honored, even if it does
very quickly get re-committed.
My major reason to revert is the following: the documentation contains
no examples of real world usage, making the feature essentially
unusable out of the box. I attended Stephen's talk at PostgesOpen and
even that didn't contain real cases either, leaving me to ask
questions about stuff I thought I knew. This would be sufficient for
me to reject commit of any other patch, so it is sufficient reason
here also. Yeb can supply a useful real world case if there is some
restriction on explaining what this might be used for.
Stephen, I want this patch in 9.5 and I would very much like to see it
go in before Oct 31. But please follow consensus, revert the patch
now, address the minor issues as requested and then ask for re-commit
later, as you should have done in the first place.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services