Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't maintain that end-user testing is unuseful at this point. I
> do maintain that it would be better to (1) finish fixing the known
> multixact bugs and (2) clean up some of the open items before we make
> a big push in that direction. For example, consider this item from
> the open items list:

> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEqWD=yNQE+ZojbpoxyWT3xLK52-V_q9S+XOfCKJd5egA@mail.gmail.com

> Now this is a fundamental definitional issue about how RLS is supposed
> to work. I'm not going to deny that we COULD ship a release without
> deciding what the behavior should be there, but I don't think it's a
> good idea. I am fine with the possibility that one of our new
> features may, say, dump core someplace due to a NULL pointer deference
> we haven't found yet. Such bugs can always exist, but they are easily
> fixed once found. But if we're not clear on how a feature is supposed
> to behave, which seems to be the case here, I favor trying to resolve
> that issue before shipping anything. Otherwise, we're saying "test
> this, even though the final version will likely work differently".
> That's not really helpful for us and will discourage testers from
> doing anything at all.

The other side of that coin is that we might get useful comments from
testers on how the feature ought to work. I don't agree with the notion
that all feature details must be graven on stone tablets before we start
trying to get feedback from people outside the core development community.

The same point applies to the FDW C API questions, or to RLS, or to the
"expanded objects" work that I did. (I'd really love it if the PostGIS
folk would try to use that sometime before it's too late to adjust the
definition...) Now, you could argue that people likely to have useful
input on those issues are fully capable of working with git tip, and you'd
probably be right, but would they do so? As Simon says nearby, publishing
an alpha/beta/whatever is our signal to the wider community that it's time
for them to start paying attention. I do not think they will look at 9.5
until we do that; and I think it'll be our loss if they don't start
looking at these things soon.

regards, tom lane