Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> More generally, I don't think there's ever a
>> time when it's OK to commit a patch that you're not willing to put at
>> least some effort into fixing up afterwards.
>
> Kevin said "It has become clear that the scope of problems being found
> now exceed what I can be sure of being able to fix in time to make for
> a stable release, in spite of the heroic efforts Thomas has been
> putting in". I think it's clear that Kevin is willing to put in some
> work. The issue is that he is unable to *guarantee* that he'll be able
> to put in *sufficient* time, and in light of that concedes that it
> might be best to revert and revisit for Postgres 11. He is being
> cautious, and does not want to *risk* unduly holding up the release.
>
> That was my understanding, at least.

I understood the same.  However, he didn't review or commit any of the
bug fix patches that Thomas posted in May, or even respond to the
mailing list threads.  I eventually reviewed and committed them to
avoid having the feature reverted; it took me only a few hours.
Later, he said he would review the TransitionCaptureState patch Thomas
posted at PGCon, later said again on-list that he would do so by
Friday or anyway Monday, and it's now Thursday.  In other words, I am
not going just by this particular email, but by the fact that he
hasn't committed so much as a one line bug fix or posted any reviews
in a long time.  The last non-reverted commit he made related to this
feature was on April 6th, two days after the initial commit.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company