Re: Restore-reliability mode

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:18:37PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-06-03 09:50:49 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Second, I would define the subject matter as "bug fixes, testing and
> > review", not "restructuring, testing and review." Different code
> > structures are clearest to different hackers. Restructuring, on
> > average, adds bugs even more quickly than feature development adds
> > them.
>
> I can't agree with this. While I agree with not doing large
> restructuring for 9.5, I think we can't affort not to refactor for
> clarity, even if that introduces bugs. Noticeable parts of our code have
> to frequently be modified for new features and are badly structured at
> the same time. While restructuring will may temporarily increase the
> number of bugs in the short term, it'll decrease the number of bugs long
> term while increasing the number of potential contributors and new
> features. That's obviously not to say we should just refactor for the
> sake of it.

I think I agree with everything after your first sentence. I liked your
specific proposal to split StartupXLOG(), but making broad-appeal
restructuring proposals is hard. I doubt we would get good results by casting
a wide net for restructuring ideas. Automated testing has a lower barrier to
entry and is far less liable to make things worse instead of better. I can
hope for good results from a TestSuiteFest, but not from a RestructureFest.
That said, if folks initiate compelling restructure proposals, we should be
willing to risk bugs from them like we risk bugs to acquire new features.