Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On June 5, 2015 10:02:37 PM GMT+02:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we would be foolish to rush that part into the tree. We
>> probably got here in the first place by rushing the last round of
>> fixes too much; let's try not to double down on that mistake.
> My problem with that approach is that I think the code has gotten significantly more complex in the least few weeks.
Ihave very little trust that the interactions between vacuum, the deferred truncations in the checkpointer, the state
managementin shared memory and recovery are correct. There's just too many non-local subtleties here.
> I don't know what the right thing to do here is.
My gut feeling is that rushing to make a release date is the wrong thing.
If we have confidence that we can ship something on Monday that is
materially more trustworthy than the current releases, then let's aim to
do that; but let's ship only patches we are confident in. We can do
another set of releases later that incorporate additional fixes. (As some
wise man once said, there's always another bug.)
If what you're saying is that you don't trust the already-committed patch
very much, then maybe we'd better hold off another couple weeks for more
review and testing.
regards, tom lane
