I feel this is a little unfair to the community and I encourage others to read the thread before forming a negative opinion. It seems like a fairly good exampl

I feel this is a little unfair to the community and I encourage others to read the thread before forming a negative opinion. It seems like a fairly good example of an engineering discussion. Even if the patch is correct and conforming and solves a problem, that doesn't mean there is no use for further discussion, and the surrounding discussion does seem to have merit. Things like: * Are there closely-related problems still left unsolved (e.g. retrying reads)? * Is something not configured according to best practices known by other community members? * Expressing an opinion that the use case is dangerous, so that nobody (including other people reading the thread in the future) will take it as an endorsement for running postgres on NFS. * Some legitimate-sounding questions about the specifics of the patch (around zero returns, what writeAll handles versus its callers, etc.). * At least one person agreed with you that it's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think HN is really the right place to assess the technical merits of a postgres patch, but the discussion itself seems well within reasonable bounds.