Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rujbn-007Jdf-J7 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:52:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rujbm-00BSWi-Fv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:52:10 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rujbm-00BSWa-5G for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:52:10 +0000 Received: from mail.thelabyrinth.net ([45.56.70.56]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rujbj-002H1s-2E for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:52:08 +0000 Received: from [10.5.0.2] (unknown [31.222.254.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dsteele) by mail.thelabyrinth.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 296F254662; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:52:00 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: post-freeze damage control Content-Language: en-US To: Tom Kincaid Cc: Michael Paquier , "Andrey M. Borodin" , Alvaro Herrera , Stefan Fercot , Robert Haas , Tomas Vondra , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" References: <202404091545.7zont3umry74@alvherre.pgsql> <4D31BF67-4138-41DC-831D-4BCE0466A59F@yandex-team.ru> From: David Steele In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 4/11/24 10:23, Tom Kincaid wrote: > > The extensive Beta process we have can be used to build confidence we > need in a feature that has extensive review and currently has no known > issues or outstanding objections. I did have objections, here [1] and here [2]. I think the complexity, space requirements, and likely performance issues involved in restores are going to be a real problem for users. Some of these can be addressed in future releases, but I can't escape the feeling that what we are releasing here is half-baked. Also, there are outstanding issues here [3] and now here [4]. Regards, -David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/590e3017-da1f-4af6-9bf0-1679511ca7e5%40pgmasters.net [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11b38a96-6ded-4668-b772-40f992132797%40pgmasters.net [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/05fb32c9-18d8-4f72-9af3-f41576c33119%40pgmasters.net#bb04b896f0f0147c10cee944a1391c1e [4] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9badd24d-5bd9-4c35-ba85-4c38a2feb73e%40pgmasters.net