Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2015-06-01 01:17:32
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTbi3=CdBiG4asSUnNqrB0j4d4=2kvz6X4fWW2mqSQwvw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 09:50:25AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > +1. Complexity has increased, and we are actually never at 100% sure
>> > that a given bug fix does not have side effects on other things, hence
>> > I think that a portion of this technical debt is the lack of
>> > regression test coverage, for both existing features and platforms
>> > (like Windows). The thing is that complexity has increased, but for
>> > example for many features we lack test coverage, thinking mainly
>> > replication-related stuff here. Of course we will never get to a level
>> > of 100% of confidence with just the test coverage and the buildfarm,
>> > but we should at least try to get closer to such a goal.
>>
>> FYI, I realize that one additional thing that has discouraged code
>> reorganization is the additional backpatch overhead. I think we now
>> need to accept that our reorganization-adverse approach might have cost
>> us some reliability, and that reorganization is going to add work to
>> backpatching.
>
> Actually, code reorganization in HEAD might cause backpatching to be
> more buggy, reducing reliability --- obviously we need to have a
> discussion about that.

As a result, IMO all the folks gathering to PGCon (won't be there
sorry, but I read the MLs) should have a talk about that and define a
clear list of items to tackle in terms of reorganization for 9.5, and
then update this page:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
This does not prevent to move on with all the current items and
continue reviewing existing features that have been pushed of course.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2015-06-01 03:50:59 Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2015-05-31 23:34:59 Re: nested loop semijoin estimates