Re: scary patch contest

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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