Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries
Date: 2017-04-07 18:57:44
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYXEQSOe2DPyMAKE4VRCsb0LAR8c8YtxeMt_FpG9MMAPQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
>>> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
>
>> I'm going over this one now with Pavan, with the intent of getting it in
>> committable shape.
>
> I have to agree with Andres that this is not something to push in, on the
> last day before feature freeze, when a number of people aren't comfortable
> with it. It looks much more like a feature to push at the start of a
> development cycle.

I strongly agree. Testing has found some noticeable regressions in
some cases as well, even if there were no outright bugs. I'm frankly
astonished by the ongoing unwillingness to admit that the objections
(by multiple people) to this patch have any real merit.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2017-04-07 19:04:52 Re: Undefined psql variables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-07 18:53:16 Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries