| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scary patch contest |
| Date: | 2026-08-25 18:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bhjL=bSuNztr0+HSbyozHBS_BPXu3h4b=NC3FbdoRr2A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 2:13 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 25 Aug 2026, at 18:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty scared about all of #1-#3 having a long tail of bugs that we haven't
> > found yet, in pretty critical areas.
>
> I'll prepare a revert.
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.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-08-25 18:53:54 | Re: scary patch contest |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-08-25 18:31:21 | Re: scary patch contest |