Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The real problem with the command triggers patch is that we got a
> blizzard of code. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to devote serious
> review time to a patch that's under constant development. It also
> strikes me that a tremendous amount of pain could have been avoided by
> posting a clear and detailed design sketch for that patch before
> beginning to code. Dimitri contended that without code, no one will
> read design sketches, but that doesn't for the most part jive with my
> experience, and I think that the strategy he actually chose backfired,
> because it was clear that any review would be hitting a moving target.
In my mind at least it's been more subtle. I had an agreed-on design
months before I started to code anything, at the Cluster Hackers Meeting
in Ottawa, where several commiters and long term contributors have been
participating in the discussion.
The big mistake seems to be starting to code with that rather than
spending another couple of months (or easily way more than that) of
rehashing it on-list.
About the design sketches, IME, what you can agree on on-list is a very
high level view about how to implement a feature, anything detailed
enough to have practical impact on the code you're writing happens while
reviewing code. Again, as I though the high level view was ok as of the
Cluster Hackers Meeting, I skipped that part and went directly to the
code level review.
Greg Smith will certainly stamp that email with a big red “Lesson
Learned” stamp here: nothing happened if you don't have a link to a
pgsql-hackers thread on the archives.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
