News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years. Parent comment

Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by acqq on Sunday February 10, 2019 @07:16AM (#19127498)
> you can get around this by giving them something to criticize, with a ready-at-hand response!

So you suggest that the patches should be obviously “worse” in order to have better chance to be accepted?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by guenthert on Sunday February 10, 2019 @02:12PM (#19129428)
He is (so much was plain). If those sub-optimal patches are accepted against expectations, a follow up patch with improvements can, in due time, be submitted.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by acqq on Sunday February 10, 2019 @02:25PM (#19129495)
Then please explain how would you create a patch where the only new content is a loop around the existing call to write but “sell” it “with a duck“ easier?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years by guenthert on Sunday February 10, 2019 @07:24PM (#19131112)
Try with a never-ending loop? That surely gets rejected ;-)
[ Parent | on HN ]