Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and
> > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date.
> > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think
> > it makes sense to go to beta with a huge, barely-tested pile of code
> > in the tree. Not that the testing Heikki and Fujii Masao have been
> > doing until now hasn't been good, but it's not nearly as rigorous as
> > what we will get when all of our users start banging on it.
>
> This argument would hold more water if there weren't *already* a huge,
> barely-tested pile of code in the tree, namely HS. If you think that's
> anywhere near ready to go to beta, I'm afraid I'd better disillusion
> you immediately.
I agree with Tom's analysis. HS is very complex, while SR is more
mechanical. We might find that in the end SR was stable before HS.
I think we should stay on course and see where we are when Heikki is
ready for a commit of SR.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
