Message-ID: <5573261E.6070500@commandprompt.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:55:58 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 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
References: 
 <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>
 <20150605150514.GA25537@momjian.us>
 <CANP8+jJd+7hncAmHUZCETxSPf0Ef9uKh227LBK4xSA9p1k0AYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150606030708.GA31950@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <20150606030708.GA31950@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>>  From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions
>> about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have
>> extensive README type documentation with them so the underlying principles used
>> in the development are clear. I would define the measure of a good feature as
>> whether another committer can read the code comments and get a good feel. A bad
>> feature is one where committers walk away from it, saying I don't really get it
>> and I can't read an explanation of why it does that. Tom's most significant
>> contribution is his long descriptive comments on what the problem is that need
>> to be solved, the options and the method chosen. Clarity of thought is what
>> solves bugs.
>
> Yes, I think we should have done that early-on for multi-xact, and I am
> hopeful we will learn to do that more often when complex features are
> implemented, or when we identify areas that are more complex than we
> thought.
>

I see this idea of the README as very useful. There are far more people 
like me in this community than Simon or Alvaro. I can test, I can break 
things, I can script up a harness but I need to be understand HOW and 
the README would help allow for that.

>
> People think I want to stop feature development to review.  What I am
> saying is that we need to stop development so we can be honest about
> whether we need review, and where.  It is hard to be honest when time
> and feature pressure are on you.  It shouldn't take long to make that
> decision as a group.
>

Right. This is all about taking a step back, a deep breath, an objective 
look and then digging in with a more productive and reliable manner.

Sincerely,

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.


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