Re: Why I like partial solutions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

I think PostgreSQL's standards are a bit too high. From my point of
view, the team as a whole has no desire to build the worlds best open
source database from the point of view of functionality. They seem
more interested in the writing the open source database with the
world's most aesthetically pleasing source code.


Now - in all fairness, I do software architecture for a living, and I
can't stand hacks. I fight against them *almost* every opportunity
that I get, because I'm loathe to produce such slop. I know that the
more slop gets in my code, the harder it is to enhance and maintain,
and the more likely it is to actually break code & slow down the pace
of development.


I also must admit that aesthetically pleasing source code almost
*always* means that the functionality that is there is rock solid.
That functionality was also 'purchased' at the highest price possible.


But I also know that functionality has value to the customer.
Customers have very little concern for the aesthetics of proper design
and implementation. The customer I work with right now has a slogan
that I think summed it up well for all customers in general: ( I want
it all, and I want it now ). All the valid technical arguments I have
don't mean a thing. To the customer, functionality A translates to
work savings B. The process can be well defined. Implement it. When I
tell her that the cost of implementation is some high value 'X' ( cost
in terms of time and/or $$ ), she doesn't say 'I'll wait'. She says.
"Hmm... what can I get for X/4?" When I tell her, she then says: "Can
I get A/4 now, and can you give me most of the rest of A in 4 months?
That's more important to me than functionality Y, and I can do without
this bit of spit and polish that was part of A."


So I deliver A/4 now, and she uses it now. She receives immediate
benefit. She uses the product. She's happy. I clean up my hack while I
deliver the other portion of A that she wanted.


Now I know that business processes are a far cry from database
features. They are less complex and adding a new feature doesn't
always carry the potential repercussions that a poorly thought out
database feature could cause.


Nonetheless, you tell me today that I can shrink indexes with tool X,
but tool X is a hack and likely to change, and I'll use tool X because
the value of shrinking outweighs the cost of changing to the
chrome-plated tool Y when it comes out next year. I may choose not to
use another tool because it's also a hack and not that important to my
implementation. My choice. In fact, I've found it less costly to deal
with vendors cleaning up their hacks( i.e., breaking backwards
compatibility ) than in trying to implement my own solution for said
feature and trying to replace it when the database finally implements
the feature.


I'm not advocating that you put in every hack. There's always a
balance between judging a whim and a genuine need. A good development
effort can also tolerate only a limited number of 'unresolved hacks'
at a time. Fair enough. But an application developer with a need for a
database feature is going to pick the database solution with that
feature set implemented *today*. Whether or not it's a hack will not
keep them from using it. It will keep a seasoned developer from
relying *too heavily* on it. But there's only so much you can do to
protect the users from themselves. Warning labels on tools is fair
warning.


Tom Lane wrote:

<excerpt>Bruce Momjian <<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

<excerpt><color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>So, when we review
patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at

imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.

</color></excerpt>

I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.

The fact that we put in hacks some years ago doesn't mean that we

still should.


I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets

of the functionality we want to have eventually.  I do object to hacks

that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do
it

right.

        regards, tom lane

</excerpt>