Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements

On 4/10/24 09:19, Robert Haas wrote:
> When you commit a patch and another committer writes a post-commit
> review saying that your patch has so many serious problems that he
> gave up on reviewing before enumerating all of them, that's a really
> bad sign. That should be a strong signal to you to step back and take
> a close look at whether you really understand the area of the code
> that you're touching well enough to be doing whatever it is that
> you're doing. If I got a review like that, I would have reverted the
> patch instantly, given up for the release cycle, possibly given up on
> the patch permanently, and most definitely not tried again to commit
> unless I was absolutely certain that I'd learned a lot in the meantime
> *and* had the agreement of the committer who wrote that review (or
> maybe some other committer who was acknowledged as an expert in that
> area of the code).

<snip>

> It's not Andres's job to make sure my patches are not broken. It's my
> job. That applies to the patches I write, and the patches written by
> other people that I commit. If I commit something and it turns out
> that it is broken, that's my bad. If I commit something and it turns
> out that it does not have consensus, that is also my bad. It is not
> the fault of the other people for not helping me get my patches to a
> state where they are up to project standard. It is my fault, and my
> fault alone, for committing something that was not ready. Now that
> does not mean that it isn't frustrating when I can't get the help I
> need. It is extremely frustrating. But the solution is not to commit
> anyway and then blame the other people for not providing feedback.

+many

-- 
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com