Re: Online enabling of checksums

On 2018-04-05 13:51:41 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/05/2018 01:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I want to be on the record that I think merging a nontrival feature that
> > got submitted 2018-02-21, just before the start of the last last CF, is
> > an abuse of process, and not cool.  We've other people working hard to
> > follow the process, and circumventing it like this just signals to
> > people trying to follow the rules that they're fools.
> > 
> > Merging ~2kloc patches like that is going to cause pain. And even if
> > not, it causes procedual damage.
> 
> Perhaps I am missing something but there has been a lot of public discussion
> on this feature for the last 7 weeks of which you barely participated.

I've commented weeks ago about my doubts, and Robert concurred:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZPRfMqZoK_Fbo_tD9OH9PdPFcPBsi-sdGZ6Jg8OMM2PA%40mail.gmail.com


> I certainly understand wanting some notice before commit but there has
> been lots of discussion, multiple people publicly commenting on the
> patch and Magnus has been very receptive to all feedback (that I have
> seen).

It's perfectly reasonable to continue review / improvement cycles of a
patch, even if it's not going to get in the current release. What does
that have to do with what I am concerned about?


> Perhaps we are being a sensitive because of another patch that is
> actually ramrodding the process and we need to take a step back?

No. See link above.

Please don't use "we" in this childishness implying fashion.

- Andres