Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release
Date: 2015-06-02 05:44:29
Message-ID: 20150602054429.GB50317@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:09:16PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 5/31/15 11:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:51:04PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> >> Sure - I can write code to do that. But then why release a beta at all?
> >
> > It's largely for the benefit of folks planning manual, or otherwise high-cost,
> > testing. If you budget for just one big test per year, make it a test of
> > beta1. For inexpensive testing, you may as well ignore beta and test git
> > master daily or weekly.
>
> I've gotten to the point of (relatively) high-cost coding/testing. The
> removal of checkpoint_segments and pause_on_recovery are leading to
> refactoring of not only the regressions tests but the actual backup
> code. 9.5 and 8.3 are the only versions that require exceptions in the
> code base.
>
> I've already done basic testing against 9.5 by disabling certain tests.
> Now I'm at the point where I need to start modifying code to take new
> 9.5 features/changes into account and make sure the regression tests
> work for 8.3-9.5 with the fewest number of exceptions possible.

Release of beta1 is the cue for that sort of work.

> From the perspective of backup/restore testing, 9.5 has the most changes
> since 9.0. I'd like to know that the API at least is stable before
> investing the time in new development.

Its API will be as good as pgsql-hackers could make it; beta1 is also a call
for help discovering API problems we overlooked. Subsequent API changes are
usually reactions to beta test reports.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Lelarge 2015-06-02 06:51:51 Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?
Previous Message Noah Misch 2015-06-02 05:21:21 Re: 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1