On 11 May 2018 at 16:37, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2018-05-11 14:56:12 +0200, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 11 May 2018 at 05:32, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > No. Simon just claimed it's not actually a concern:
>> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+j+vtskPhEp_GmqmEqdWaKSt2KbOtee0yz-my+Agh0aRPw@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> > And yes, it got committed without doing squat to address the
>> > architectural concerns.
>>
>> "Squat" means "zero, nothing" to me. So that comment would be inaccurate.
>
> Yes, I know it means that. And I don't see how it is inaccurate.
>
>
>> I have no problem if you want to replace this with an even better
>> design in a later release.
>
> Meh. The author / committer should get a patch into the right shape
They have done, at length. Claiming otherwise is just trash talk.
As you pointed out, the design of the patch avoids layering violations
that could have led to architectural objections. Are you saying I
should have ignored your words and rewritten the patch to introduce a
layering violation? What other objection do you think has not been
addressed?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
