Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vik Fearing
Subject Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
Date
Msg-id 525E5A1F.5050102@dalibo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 10/16/2013 10:57 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Vik,
>
>> I see this is marked as rejected in the commitfest app, but I don't see
>> any note about who did it or why.  I don't believe there is consensus
>> for rejection on this list. In fact I think the opposite is true.
>>
>> May we have an explanation please from the person who rejected this
>> without comment?
>
> I did it, on the basis that you stated that you prefered not adding
> pg_sleep(TEXT) to answer Robert Haas concern about preserving
> pg_sleep('10') current functionality, and that no other solution was
> suggested to tackle this issue.

The suggested solution is to ignore the issue.

> If I'm mistaken, feel free to change the state back to what is
> appropriate.

I'm not really sure what the proper workflow is for marking a patch as
rejected, actually.  I wouldn't mind some clarification on this from the
CFM or somebody.

In the meantime I've set it to Ready for Committer because in my mind
there is a consensus for it (see below) and you don't appear to have
anything more to say about the patch except for the do-we/don't-we issue.

> My actual opinion is that breaking pg_sleep('10') is no big deal, but
> I'm nobody here, and Robert is somebody, so I think that his concern
> must be addressed.

Tom Lane is somebody, too, and his opinion is to break it or reject it
although he refrains from picking a side[1].  Josh Berkus and Stephen
Frost are both somebodies and they are on the "break it" side[2][3]. 
Peter Eisentraut gave no opinion at all but did say that Robert's
argument was not very good.  I am for it because I wrote the patch, and
you seem not to care.  So the way I see it we have:

For: Josh, Stephen, me
Against: Robert
Neutral: Tom, you

I don't know if that's enough of a consensus to commit it, but I do
think it's not nearly enough of a consensus to reject it.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16727.1376697147%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/520EC584.3050805@agliodbs.com
[3]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130820013033.GU2706@tamriel.snowman.net

-- 
Vik




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Standby catch up state change