Removing "Included attributes in B-tree indexes" section from docs

On 2018-Jun-15, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

I propose removing the "Included attributes in B-tree indexes"
top-level section of chapter 63 from the user facing documentation.

Hi Peter,

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?

The doc section that I removed was a last minute addition to the
covering index commit, commit 8224de4f, something that I was heavily
involved in as a reviewer. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I had
discretion to commit within a relatively short period of time (a
little over 24 hours) because of the specific circumstances: I knew
that the doc section was not well considered in the first place, I
thought that the question was clear cut, and I doubted that anyone
else would follow up at all.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:33 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?

The doc section that I removed was a last minute addition to the
covering index commit, commit 8224de4f, something that I was heavily
involved in as a reviewer. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I had
discretion to commit within a relatively short period of time (a
little over 24 hours) because of the specific circumstances: I knew
that the doc section was not well considered in the first place, I
thought that the question was clear cut, and I doubted that anyone
else would follow up at all.

FWIW, I've no objections against removing this.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?

One which includes at least half a working day in a different timezone.
You asked mid-afternoon on a Friday in a timezone pretty far west. I
think you could find people in their offices in Easter Island, but not
many more.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

One which includes at least half a working day in a different timezone.
You asked mid-afternoon on a Friday in a timezone pretty far west.

It was 11 am PST.

I'll make a note about this. It won't happen again.

--
Peter Geoghegan

On 2018-06-18 13:21:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?

One which includes at least half a working day in a different timezone.
You asked mid-afternoon on a Friday in a timezone pretty far west. I
think you could find people in their offices in Easter Island, but not
many more.

I think there's also a question of how much a patch is blocking you /
others. A shorter question period is more understandable if it's step
3/40, rather than 1/1...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:

I think there's also a question of how much a patch is blocking you /
others. A shorter question period is more understandable if it's step
3/40, rather than 1/1...

Agreed. For non-critical stuff like this it seems like waiting 2 or 3
business days is a good idea.

Doesn't sound like there's any actual controversy in this case, though.

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

On 06/18/2018 01:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote:

On 2018-06-18 13:21:43 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2018-Jun-17, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

I don't necessarily object to the proposed change, but I think you
should generally wait a bit longer for others to react.

What wait period do you think is appropriate in this case?

One which includes at least half a working day in a different timezone.
You asked mid-afternoon on a Friday in a timezone pretty far west. I
think you could find people in their offices in Easter Island, but not
many more.

I think there's also a question of how much a patch is blocking you /
others. A shorter question period is more understandable if it's step
3/40, rather than 1/1...

Yeah, but this would still apply for the first in a series of advertised
patches.

I usually try to wait at least a couple of days. I'm sure every
committer understands how you can feel the itch to push. I know I do.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services