Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:25:32 +0200
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 pgsql-core <pgsql-core@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode
Message-ID: <20150603172532.GE18006@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <20150529223321.GB6535@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoYSO0a9YDe2bhpZoPgO4m62CyQL26LRkCQ8=vrQ8ZwdXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <12510.1432958887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoYovkev0xXnxaTD8vnt=M9Cn+RmOkVEouqwj6_9JLkzLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150530154559.GA25053@momjian.us>
 <20150530204727.GJ13944@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20150531024845.GB13697@momjian.us>
 <20150603135049.GA74753@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <WM!4ae914f9770e3cb63aa899dbc2db60d7ff4a3ad580e90f3dc1cd72315fff26fd1935dbe8884fd2e9f5370d881036c3bd!@asav-3.01.com>
 <556F3798.6010707@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <556F3798.6010707@agliodbs.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015-06-03 10:21:28 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So, historically, this is what the period between feature freeze and
> beta1 was for; the "consolidation" phase was supposed to deal with this.
>  The problem over the last few years, by my observation, has been that
> consolidation has been left to just a few people (usually just Bruce &
> Tom or Tom & Robert) and our code base is now much to large for that.
> 
> The way other projects deal with this is having continuous testing as
> stuff comes in, and *more* testing that just our regression tests (e.g.
> acceptance tests, integration tests, performance tests, etc.). So our
> other issue has been that our code complexity has been growing faster
> than our test suite.  Part of that is that this community has never
> placed much value in automated testing or testers, so people who are
> interested in it find other projects to contribute to.
> 
> I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review
> of code, without adding any new automated tests or other non-manual
> tools for improving stability, then it's a waste of time; we might as
> well just release the beta, and our users will find more issues than we
> will.  I am concerned that if we declare a cleanup period, especially in
> the middle of the summer, all that will happen is that the project will
> go to sleep for an extra three months.
> 
> I will also point out that there is a major adoption cost to delaying
> 9.5.   Right now users are excited about UPSERT, big data, and extra
> JSON features. If they have to wait another 7 months, they'll be a lot
> less excited, and we'll lose more potential users to the new databases
> and the MySQL forks.  It could also delay the BDR project (Simon/Craig
> can speak to this) which would suck.
> 
> Reliability of having a release every year is important as well as
> database reliability ... and for a lot of the new webdev generation,
> PostgreSQL is already the most reliable piece of software infrastructure
> they use.  So if we're going to have a cleanup delay, then let's please
> make it an *intensive* cleanup delay, with specific goals, milestones,
> and a schedule.  Otherwise, don't bother.

+very many


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers