Hi,
On 2021-04-14 20:08:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:55 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:33 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > I'm getting a bit bothered by the speed at which you're pushing fairly
> > > substantial behavioural for vacuum. In this case without even a warning
> > > that you're about to do so.
> >
> > To a large degree the failsafe is something that is written in the
> > hope that it will never be needed. This is unlike most other things,
> > and has its own unique risks.
> >
> > I think that the proper thing to do is to accept a certain amount of
> > risk in this area. The previous status quo was *appalling*, and so it
> > seems very unlikely that the failsafe hasn't mostly eliminated a lot
> > of risk for users. That factor is not everything, but it should count
> > for a lot. The only way that we're going to have total confidence in
> > anything like this is through the experience of it mostly working over
> > several releases.
>
> I think this is largely missing the point Andres was making, which is
> that you made a significant behavior change after feature freeze
> without any real opportunity for discussion. More generally, you've
> changed a bunch of other stuff relatively quickly based on input from
> a relatively limited number of people. Now, it's fair to say that it's
> often hard to get input on things, and sometimes you have to just take
> your best shot and hope you're right. But in this particular case, you
> didn't even try to get broader participation or buy-in. That's not
> good.
Yep, that was what I was trying to get at.
- Andres
