Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z21A9-0002Xt-Uc for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:48:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z21A9-00066A-BU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:48:41 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Z21A8-00065s-FX; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:48:40 +0000 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z21A5-0003iW-7l; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:48:39 +0000 Received: from intern.anarazel.de (p54AF4766.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.175.71.102]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8651D860002; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 19:48:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 19:48:36 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Noah Misch , Simon Riggs , Robert Haas , Tom Lane , Stephen Frost , Magnus Hagander , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" , pgsql-core Subject: Re: Restore-reliability mode Message-ID: <20150608174836.GF20772@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <12510.1432958887@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20150530154559.GA25053@momjian.us> <20150530204727.GJ13944@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150531024845.GB13697@momjian.us> <20150603135049.GA74753@tornado.leadboat.com> <20150606195805.GA118899@tornado.leadboat.com> <20150608174405.GJ24173@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150608174405.GJ24173@momjian.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 2015-06-08 13:44:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I understand the overreaction/underreaction debate. Here were my goals > in this discussion: > > 1. stop worry about the 9.5 timeline so we could honestly assess our > software - *done* > 2. seriously address multi-xact issues without 9.5/commit-fest pressure - > *in process* > 3. identify any other areas in need of serious work > > While I like the list you provided, I don't think we can be effective in > an environment where we assume every big new features will have problems > like multi-xact. For example, we have not seen destabilization from any > major 9.4 features, that I can remember anyway. > > Unless there is consensus about new areas for #3, I am thinking we will > continue looking at multi-xact until we are happy, then move ahead with > 9.5 items in the way we have before. I think one important part is that we (continue to?) regularly tell our employers that work on pre-commit, post-commit review, and refactoring are critical for their long term business prospects. My impression so far is that that the employer side hasn't widely realized that fact, and that many contributors do the review etc. part in their spare time. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers