From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
        Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
In-reply-to: <Yw+nJbDhHRle4Q2e@momjian.us>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqH8gTp2uNN3QtgeOSgHhZUZz1=0U+JObJJUmEoch_269Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220830092008.6dbublx6la226zis@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CA+HiwqFvP23i3kTHt6TW4FqO6he1YSJXeyGOdFV_YbP=xeS99A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f54ebd2b-0e67-d1c6-4ff7-5d732492d1a0@postgrespro.ru>
 <CA+HiwqHLVPdA7e3Y-S5giKPsqQPf8M0nuvgz8+3D8GjQexXLYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqECHA0aUi0Bo3tdYTJ27i2MRWUZ5BewQoO0WgRvRXQO-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <abd31e0b-56aa-044f-6700-8a1c1bba87f1@dunslane.net>
 <2276d20d-43ff-f9f6-5c9c-c2875739e66c@postgresql.org>
 <CA+TgmoaM1LeGZw58cxSHXFJuejp-Sw6W7jzwHjZjq2+J5bQQaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yw+nJbDhHRle4Q2e@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:23:33 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <35145.1661971558.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:45:58 -0400
Message-ID: <35146.1661971558@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/35146.1661971558%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I guess you are saying that setting a cut-off was a bad idea, or that
> the cut-off was too close to the final release date.  For me, I think
> there were three questions:

> 1.  Were subtransactions acceptable, consensus no
> 2.  Could trapping errors work for PG 15, consensus no
> 3.  Could the feature be trimmed back for PG 15 to avoid these, consensus ?

We could probably have accomplished #3 if there was more time,
but we're out of time.  (I'm not entirely convinced that spending
effort towards #3 was productive anyway, given that we're now thinking
about a much differently-scoped patch with API changes.)

> I don't think our community works well when there are three issues in
> play at once.

To the extent that there was a management failure here, it was that
we didn't press for a resolution sooner.  Given the scale of the
concerns raised in June, I kind of agree with Andres' opinion that
fixing them post-freeze was doomed to failure.  It was definitely
doomed once we reached August with no real work done towards it.

			regards, tom lane