Re: scary patch contest

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 12:24 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 02:50:37PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > I don't feel like there is consensus that we need to revert this yet.
> > One thing that I'm wondering is if the ease with which LLMs allow
> > people to pressure test features means we are finding more bugs sooner
> > than we have in the past. With online checksums, as far as I
> > understand, the design has consensus and the implementation has
> > required follow-on commits but not more than other similar sized
> > features that weren't reverted. I understand that the concern is 1)
> > data corruption is especially bad and 2) if there were bugs so far,
> > who knows what more could be lurking. But I tend to wonder if 2 is
> > changing because of how easy it is to look for bugs now.
>
> If we look back at previously released features, does anyone feel these
> PG 19 features received an unusualy high number of cleanup patches? And
> if so, are there more because of AI, as Melanie is asking?
>

I think so. Now, with AI it is relatively easier to understand the
code and find the problems. So more people are able to find and
provide the solution to problems. IMO, this is good for long term
stability of the project even though in the short-term, we see more
cleanup patches post-commit. I am hoping that slowly we will also use
AI more before committing and reduce such cleanup work after-words.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.