Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years
by tamalesfan on Sunday February 10, 2019 @02:49PM
(#19129599)
> Do you really expect us to integrate patches without thinking about that?
Whoa! You made huge leap there. At what point was it suggested that patches be recklessly applied?
That didn't happen. Your quote actually suggests a reasonable progression and at no point is there any suggestion, implied or otherwise, that changes be integrated without due consideration.
Not irrationally dismissing criticism != abandoning sound design and development.
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years
by mjw1007 on Sunday February 10, 2019 @03:07PM
(#19129682)
Multiple people on this thread have expressed the opinion that the patch was "too perfect" or that the only reason that the patch wasn't simply accepted was that the maintainers "feel weird when there's nothing to criticize".
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years
by pgaddict on Sunday February 10, 2019 @04:15PM
(#19130076)
Ugh. I don't know a single PostgreSQL committer with that attitude. Maybe my patches are too crap to be in that situation, not sure.
Re:PostgreSQL used fsync incorrectly for 20 years
by tamalesfan on Sunday February 10, 2019 @03:57PM
(#19129984)
"Multiple people" were left with nothing better to which to attribute maintainer decisions. See the dysfunction there? Don't address the problem, or the proposed solution; just leave it to fester and create discontent.
That's not how well run projects function.
But there were like multiple people agreeing that it needs to be changed. Including the first two responses that the thread got. And there were legitimate questions around how interrupts need to be handled, about errors ought to be signaled if writes partially succeed and everything. Do you really expect us to integrate patches without thinking about that? And then the author vanished...