On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:08 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is largely missing the point Andres was making, which is
> that you made a significant behavior change after feature freeze
> without any real opportunity for discussion.
I don't believe that it was a significant behavior change, for the
reason I gave: the fact of the matter is that it's practically
impossible for us to truncate the heap anyway, provided we have
already decided to not vacuum (as opposed to prune) heap pages that
almost certainly have some LP_DEAD items in them. Note that later heap
pages are the most likely to still have some LP_DEAD items once the
failsafe triggers, which are precisely the ones that will affect
whether or not we can truncate the whole heap.
I accept that I could have done better with the messaging. I'll try to
avoid repeating that mistake in the future.
> More generally, you've
> changed a bunch of other stuff relatively quickly based on input from
> a relatively limited number of people. Now, it's fair to say that it's
> often hard to get input on things, and sometimes you have to just take
> your best shot and hope you're right.
I agree in general, and I agree that that's what I've done in this
instance. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I accept
full responsibility.
> But in this particular case, you
> didn't even try to get broader participation or buy-in. That's not
> good.
I will admit to being somewhat burned out by this project. That might
have been a factor.
--
Peter Geoghegan
