Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > This would clearly be an adjustment to the submitted patch, which
> > happens regularly during the review and commit process and is part of
> > the commitfest process, so I don't agree that holding it to new-feature
> > level is correct when it's a change which is entirely relevant to this
> > new feature, and one which a committer is asking to be included as part
> > of the change. Nor do I feel particularly bad about asking for feature
> > authors to be prepared to rework parts of their feature based on
> > feedback during the commitfest process.
>
> Obviously, reworking the patch is an expected part of the CommitFest
> process. However, I disagree that what you're asking for can in any
> way be fairly characterized that way. You're not trying to make it do
> the thing that it does better or differently. You're trying to make
> it do a second thing.
I don't agree with the particularly narrow definition you're using in
this case to say that adding an option to initdb to change how big WAL
files are, which will also change how they're named (even though this
patch doesn't *specifically* do anything with the naming because there
was a configure-time switch which existed before) means that asking for
the WAL files names, which are already being changed, to be changed in a
different way, is really outside the scope and a new feature.
To put this in another light, had this issue been brought up post
feature-freeze, your definition would mean that we would only have the
option to either revert the patch entirely or to live with the poor
naming scheme. For my 2c, in such a case, I would have voted to make
the change even post feature-freeze unless we were very close to
release as it's not really a new 'feature'.
Thankfully, that isn't the case here and we do have time to consider
changing it without having to worry about having a post feature-freeze
discussion about it.
Thanks!
Stephen
