On 05/04/2016 12:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
The PostgreSQL 9.6 release management team has determined that there
is insufficient consensus at this time to revert any of the patches
mentioned in
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYOWTtBQEL+Bv=w93bvUjbXSUw3uGnp+R29dduZ==8...@mail.gmail.com
because, with the exception of "snapshot too old", none of those
patches have attracted more than a single vote to revert. While
"snapshot too old" has attracted three votes to revert (Tom, Bruce,
Andres), one of those was on the grounds of not liking the feature i
general rather than any specific problem with the implementation (Tom)
and another gave no reason at all (Bruce). When originally proposed,
there was clear consensus that the feature was useful, so any revert
should be on the grounds that the current implementation is flawed.
... which, indeed, is precisely what Andres is asserting, no? I do
not understand your conclusion.
If the threshold is "more than one vote to revert", I'm sure that can
be arranged. For the most part I think people have assumed that if
one senior hacker complains about something, it's not really necessary
for other people to duplicate that person's review effort. We don't
have a surplus of manpower available for such things, and I believe
most of us are going flat out right now anyway trying to get ready
for beta. Duplicate reviews are hard to come by.
Just my .02, pretty sure the majority of the community says, "TGL just
sent -1, argument over." That may or may not be a good thing but his
experience and depth of knowledge of our code base pretty much seals it
for most of us.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
