From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
 Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, 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
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoYP=7XNn-9O+2Z8fuRahVxGVuHkkp3ZUxCsHeCD7GTpHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+Tgmoadg9dHLpWodfwDaTZ=RbW+C_4CrgYyZ=Vx5QpMyP=N5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <28477.1432931820@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa6hekDGenr29TG_K4bH7rxLEM9RU+5KDAiY+SiAsFhew@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <CANP8+jJPyQLadtqrPJKrBVOEvK85nz+2oMk=CDAcUrwS-O-eNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYP=7XNn-9O+2Z8fuRahVxGVuHkkp3ZUxCsHeCD7GTpHA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:00:01 -0400"
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:23:56 -0400
Message-ID: <26673.1433514236@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing.

> The code is available for public testing right now.

Only to people who have the time and ability to pull the code from git
and build from source.  I don't know exactly what fraction of interested
testers that excludes, but I bet it's significant.  The point of producing
packages would be to remove that barrier to testing.

> Stamping it a
> beta implies that we think it's something fairly stable that we'd be
> pretty happy to release if things go well, which is a higher bar to
> clear.

So let's call it an alpha, or some other way of setting expectations
appropriately.  But I think it's silly to maintain that the code is not in
a state where end-user testing is useful.  They just have to understand
that they can't trust it with production data.

> I can't help noticing for all the drumbeat of "let's release 9.5 beta
> now", activity to clean up the items on this list seems quite
> sluggish:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items

While we need to work on those items, I do not agree that getting that
list to empty has to happen before we release a test version.  I think
serializing effort in that way is simply bad project management.  And
it's not how we've operated in the past either: getting the open items
list to empty has always been understood as a prerequisite to RC versions,
not to betas.

To get to specifics instead of generalities: exactly which of the current
open items do you think is so bad that it precludes user testing?  I do
not see a beta-blocker in the lot.

			regards, tom lane


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