Re: Process startup infrastructure is a mess

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Process startup infrastructure is a mess
Date: 2017-09-15 01:30:11
Message-ID: 20170915013011.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres, Simon,

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2017-09-15 01:06:54 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If we add something to an area then its a good time to refactor it
> > since we were going to get bugs anyway.
>
> We've added something to the area on a regular basis. As in last in
> v10. The fundamental problem with your argument is that that makes it
> impossible for most contributors to get feature in that touch these
> parts of the code - many neither have the time nor the knowledge to do
> such a refactoring. By your argument we should have rejected logical
> replication for v10 because it complicated this further, without
> cleaning it up.
>
> Besides that, it also makes it harder to develop new features, not just
> to get them in.

I'm definitely in agreement with Andres on this one. This isn't
refactoring of little-to-never changed code, it's refactoring bits of
the system which are changed with some regularity and looks likely to
continue to need change as we add more features moving forward, and
perhaps add greater controls over process startup.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-09-15 01:31:28 Re: Trouble with amcheck
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-15 01:24:26 Re: SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes