Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:36 PM Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That is somewhat fair, but it is also a lot of work. There are
multiple people asking for you to revert things on multiple threads,
and figuring out all of the revert requests and trying to come to some
consensus about what should be done in each case is going to take an
enormous amount of time. I know you've done lots of good work on
PostgreSQL in the past and I respect that, but I think you also have
to realize that you're asking other people to spend a LOT of time
figuring out what to do about the current situation. I see Andres has
posted more specifically about what he thinks should happen to each of
the table AM patches and I am willing to defer to his opinion, but we
need to make some quick decisions here to either keep things or take
them out. Extensive reworks after feature freeze should not be an
option that is on the table; that's what makes it a freeze.

I also do not think I really believe that there's been so much stuff
committed that a blanket revert would be all that hard to carry off,
if that were the option that the community ended up preferring.

> 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.

I am not sure how to respond to this. On a personal level, I am sorry
to hear that you were arrested and, if I can be of some help to you,
we can discuss that off-list. However, if you're suggesting that there
is some kind of equivalence between me criticizing your decisions
about what to commit and someone in a position of authority putting
you in jail, well, I don't think it's remotely fair to compare those
things.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com