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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
