Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:19 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:20 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with the facts.  But I have a different interpretation on
> > this.  The patch was committed as 11470f544e on March 23, 2023, then
> > reverted on April 3.  I've proposed the revised version, but Andres
> > complained that this is the new API design days before FF.
>
> Well, his first complaint that your committed patch was full of bugs:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230323003003.plgaxjqahjgkuxrk%40awork3.anarazel.de
>
> When you commit a patch and another committer writes a post-commit
> review saying that your patch has so many serious problems that he
> gave up on reviewing before enumerating all of them, that's a really
> bad sign. That should be a strong signal to you to step back and take
> a close look at whether you really understand the area of the code
> that you're touching well enough to be doing whatever it is that
> you're doing. If I got a review like that, I would have reverted the
> patch instantly, given up for the release cycle, possibly given up on
> the patch permanently, and most definitely not tried again to commit
> unless I was absolutely certain that I'd learned a lot in the meantime
> *and* had the agreement of the committer who wrote that review (or
> maybe some other committer who was acknowledged as an expert in that
> area of the code).
>
> What you did instead is try to do a bunch of post-commit fixup in a
> desperate rush right before feature freeze, to which Andres
> understandably objected. But that was your second mistake, not your
> first one.
>
> > Then the
> > patch with this design was published in the thread for the year with
> > periodical rebases.  So, I think I expressed my intention with that
> > design before 2023 FF, nobody prevented me from expressing objections
> > or other feedback during the year.  Then I realized that 2024 FF is
> > approaching and decided to give this another try for pg18.
>
> This doesn't seem to match the facts as I understand them. It appears
> to me that there was no activity on the thread from April until
> November. The message in November was not written by you. Your first
> post to the thread after April of 2023 was on March 19, 2024. Five
> days later you said you wanted to commit. That doesn't look to me like
> you worked diligently on the patch set throughout the year and other
> people had reasonable notice that you planned to get the work done
> this cycle. It looks like you ignored the patch for 11 months and then
> committed it without any real further feedback from anyone. True,
> Pavel did post and say that he thought the patches were in good shape.
> But you could hardly take that as evidence that Andres was now content
> that the problems he'd raised earlier had been fixed, because (a)
> Pavel had also been involved beforehand and had not raised the
> concerns that Andres later raised and (b) Pavel wrote nothing in his
> email specifically about why he thought your changes or his had
> resolved those concerns. I certainly agree that Andres doesn't always
> give as much review feedback as I'd like to have from him in, and it's
> also true that he doesn't always give that feedback as quickly as I'd
> like to have it ... but you know what?
>
> It's not Andres's job to make sure my patches are not broken. It's my
> job. That applies to the patches I write, and the patches written by
> other people that I commit. If I commit something and it turns out
> that it is broken, that's my bad. If I commit something and it turns
> out that it does not have consensus, that is also my bad. It is not
> the fault of the other people for not helping me get my patches to a
> state where they are up to project standard. It is my fault, and my
> fault alone, for committing something that was not ready. Now that
> does not mean that it isn't frustrating when I can't get the help I
> need. It is extremely frustrating. But the solution is not to commit
> anyway and then blame the other people for not providing feedback.
>
> I mean, committing without explicit agreement from someone else is OK
> if you're pretty sure that you've got everything sorted out correctly.
> But I don't think that the paper trail here supports the narrative
> that you worked on this diligently throughout the year and had every
> reason to believe it would be acceptable to the community. If I'd
> looked at this thread, I would have concluded that you'd abandoned the
> project. I would have expected that, when you picked it up again,
> there would be a series of emails over a period of time carefully
> working through the various issues that had been raised, inviting
> specific commentary on specific discussion points, and generally
> refining the work, and then maybe a suggestion of a commit at the end.
> I would not have expected an email or two basically saying "well,
> seems like it's all fixed now," followed by a commit.

Robert, I appreciate your feedback.  I don't say I agree with
everything.  For example, I definitely wasn't going to place the blame
on others for not giving feedback.  My point was to show that it
wasn't so that I've committed that patch without taking feedback into
account.  But arguing on every point doesn't feel reasonable for now.
I would better share particular conclusions I made:
1) I shouldn't argue too much about reverting patches especially with
committers more experienced with relevant part of codebase.
2) The fact that previous feedback is taken into account should be
expressed more explicitly everywhere: in comments, commit messages,
mailing list messages etc.

But I have to mention that even that I've committed table AM stuff
close to the FF, there has been quite amount of depended work
committed.  So, revert of these patches is promising to be not
something immediate and easy, which requires just the decision.  It
would touch others work.  And and revert patches might also need
review.  I get the point that patches got lack of consensus.  But in
terms of efforts (not my efforts) it's probably makes sense to get
them some post-commit review.

> > Do you propose a ban from March 1 to the end of any year?  I think the
> > first doesn't make sense, because it leaves only 2 months a year for
> > the work.  That would create a potential rush during these 2 month and
> > could serve exactly opposite to the intention.  So, I guess this means
> > a ban from March 1 to the FF of any year.  The situation now is quite
> > unpleasant for me.  So I'm far from repeating this next year.
> > However, if there should be a formal ban, it should be specified.
> > Does it relate to the patches I've pushed, all patches in this thread,
> > all similar patches, all table AM patches, or other API patches?
>
> I meant from March 1 to feature freeze, but maybe I should have
> proposed that you shouldn't ever commit these patches. The more I look
> at this, the less happy I am with how you did it.

Robert, look.  Last year I went through the arrest for expressing my
opinion.  I that was not what normal arrest should look like, but a
period of survival.  My family went through a period of fear, struggle
and uncertainty.  Now, we're healthy and safe, but there is still
uncertainty given asylum seeker status.  During all this period, I
have to just obey, agree with everything, lie that I apologize about
things I don't apologize.  I had to do this, because the price of
expressing myself was not just my life, but also health, freedom and
well-being of my family.

I owe you great respect for all your work for PostgreSQL, and
especially for your efforts on getting things organized.  But it
wouldn't work the way you increase my potential punishment and I just
say that I'm obey and you're right about everything.  You may even
initiate the procedure of my exclusion from committers (no idea what
the procedure is), ban from the list etc.  I see you express many
valuable points, but my view is not exactly same as yours.  And like a
conclusion to some as result of discussion not threats.

I feel the sense of blame and fear in latest discussions, and I don't
like it.  That's OK to place the blame from time to time.  But I would
like to add here more joy and respect (and I'm sorry I personally
didn't do enough in this matter).  It's important get things right
etc.  But in long term relationships may mean more.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov