From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Old small commitfest items |
Date: | 2018-07-05 03:08:44 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk7GTS=i2NDREO6JXv2Kh5h2o1Xvr+3Vf==Fu9h1umARg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I don't know about any of that, but something has to give. How much
>> more time has to pass before we admit defeat? At a certain point, that
>> is the responsible thing to do.
>
> Well, for this one it is not really complicated to avoid the failures
> reported and the potential data losses if the so-said optimizations,
> which are actually broken, have their checks tightened a bit. So I'd
> rather not give up on this one if there are ways to prevent user-facing
> problems.
I'm not suggesting that we should give up, or that we should not give
up. I think that timeboxing it is a good idea. In other words, the
question "How much more time has to pass before we admit defeat?" was
not a rhetorical question.
As things stand, we're not doing anything, which has a cost that adds
up as time goes on. Let's be realistic. If nobody is willing to do the
work, then a reasonable person must eventually conclude that that's
because it isn't worth doing.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-07-05 03:19:20 | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-07-05 03:04:23 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |