| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament |
| Date: | 2016-04-19 20:06:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4664.1461096415@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I would have appreciated more scope to say how confident I am in my
>> prediction, and how scary in absolute terms I consider the scariest
>> patches to be.
> It was purposefully ambiguous. Maybe it should have been stated
> explicitely.
I was thinking about complaining that "scariest" and "most bugs" are
not the same thing. Features you can turn off are not very scary,
even if they're full of bugs (cough ... parallel query ... cough),
because we could just ship 'em disabled by default until there's more
reason to trust them. What I find scary is patches that can break
existing use-cases with no simple workaround. I'm not sure which one
to vote for yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2016-04-19 20:16:37 | Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-19 19:37:39 | Re: Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament |