Tom Lane wrote:
> mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > I kind of second your opinion here. I also have my doubts that the
> > default is not as well tested as the option.
> By that logic, we could never make any new releases, or at least never
> add any new code. "New code isn't as well tested as old code" is an
> unhelpful observation.
Oh come on now. That isn't the point. One could, however, leave the
default "as is" and make the new feature the option for at least one
release cycle. That seem pretty sane without being overly conservative.
> FWIW, I trust lazy VACUUM a lot *more* than I trust the old VACUUM code.
> Read the tuple-chain-moving logic in vacuum.c sometime, and then tell me
> how confident you feel in it. (My gut tells me that that logic is
> responsible for the recent reports of duplicate tuples in 7.1.*, though
> I can't yet back this up with any evidence.)
> > Plus, aren't there some isses with the non-locking vacuum?
> Such as?
I'm not sure, I have vague recollection of some things (I thought the
duplicate primary keys was on 7.2), but if you think it is good, then
I'll take your word for it.
> > Are all the PostgreSQL developers really, really, sure that all the new
> > features in 7.2 are ready for prime time?
> See above. If you like, we'll push out the release date a few years.
> Of course, the code won't get any more ready for prime time just by
> sitting on it.
No, that isn't my point. My point is the changes in OIDs and the new
vacuum code seem like a more drastic set of changes than previous
Again, there is a time on every project when it is speak now or forever
hold your peace. Bruce spoke, he raised some concerns, I had similar
ones. There can be no harm in doing a little retrospect.
> I think that we've very nearly reached the point where further time in
> beta phase isn't going to yield any new info. Only putting it out as
> an official release will draw enough new users to expose remaining bugs.
> We've been through this same dynamic with every previous release; 7.2
> won't be any different.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Brian Hirt||Date: 2001-12-18 17:35:22|
|Subject: Re: problems with table corruption continued |
|Previous:||From: Don Baccus||Date: 2001-12-18 17:21:40|
|Subject: Re: Concerns about this release|