On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> As long as we have solidarity of the committers that this is not allowed, however, this is not a real problem. And
itappears that we do. In the future, it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it.
>>
>> Solidarity?
>>
>> Simon - who was a committer last time I checked - seems to think that
>> the current process is entirely bunko.
>
> I'm not sure why anyone that disagrees with you should be accused of
> wanting to junk the whole process. I've not said that and I don't
> think this.
>
> Before you arrived, it was quite normal to suggest tuning patches
> after feature freeze.
I, of course, am not in a position to comment on what happened before
I arrived. But of the six committers who have weighed in on this
thread, you're the only one who thinks this can plausibly be called a
tuning patch. Nor would the outcome of this discussion have been any
different if I hadn't participated in it, which is why I steered clear
of the whole topic of how the patch should be handled procedurally for
the first three days. By the time I weighed in with my opinion, Tom
and Heikki had already expressed theirs.
Now it's possible that my influence is so widespread and pernicious
that I've managed to convince to change Tom and Heikki's opinions on
the topic of feature freeze. Perhaps, three years ago, they would
have been willing to accept the patch at the last minute, but now,
because of my advocacy for a disciplined feature freeze, they are not.To accept this argument, you would have to
believethat I have the
power to make Tom Lane more conservative. I don't believe I have
either the power or the inclination to do any such thing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company