Re: what to revert - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: what to revert
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZTzMC4zrRJBma2tawQSUYLs5mj74tcD=vSgB_dkDG9wWg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: what to revert  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: what to revert  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: what to revert  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: what to revert  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> As its committer, I tend to agree about reverting that feature.  Craig
> was just posting some more patches, and I have the pg_recvlogical
> changes here (--endpos) which after some testing are not quite looking
> ready to go -- plus we still have to write the actual Perl test scripts
> that would use it.  Taken together, this is now looking to me a bit
> rushed, so I prefer to cut my losses here and revert the patch so that
> we can revisit it for 9.7.

I think it's a positive development that we can take this attitude to
reverting patches. It should not be seen as a big personal failure,
because it isn't. Stigmatizing reverts incentivizes behavior that
leads to bad outcomes.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: what to revert