On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
That may well be so, but adding another one is not going to improve
the situation even a little bit. I don't think what you're saying
weakens in the slightest the argument that I was making, namely, that
if this isn't committed RSN it should be postponed to 8.6. Do you
disagree?
...Robert
