On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2017, at 23:54, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> With all due respect, it's hard not to see this as a disruption of the
>> current CF. I agree automating the patch processing is a worthwhile
>> goal, but we're not there yet and it seems somewhat premature.
>>
>> Let me explain why I think so:
>>
>> (1) You just changed the status of 10-15% open patches. I'd expect
>> things like this to be consulted with the CF manager, yet I don't see
>> any comments from Daniel. Considering he's been at the Oslo PUG meetup
>> today, I doubt he was watching hackers very closely.
>
> Correct, I’ve been travelling and running a meetup today so had missed this on
> -hackers.
FWIW, I tend to think that the status of a patch ought to be changed
by either a direct lookup at the patch itself or the author depending
on how the discussion goes on, not an automatic processing. Or at
least have more delay to allow people to object as some patches can be
applied, but do not apply automatically because of naming issues.
There are as well people sending test patches to allow Postgres to
fail on purpose, for example see the replication slot issue not able
to retain a past segment because the beginning of a record was not
tracked correctly on the receiver-side. This can make the recovery
tests fail, but we want them to fail to reproduce easily the wanted
failure.
>> (2) You gave everyone about 4 hours to object, ending 3PM UTC, which
>> excludes about one whole hemisphere where it's either too early or too
>> late for people to respond. I'd say waiting for >24 hours would be more
>> appropriate.
>
> Agreed.
Definitely. Any batch updates have to involve the CFM authorization at
least, in this case Daniel.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers