On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I don't know about any of that, but something has to give. How much
>> more time has to pass before we admit defeat? At a certain point, that
>> is the responsible thing to do.
>
> Well, for this one it is not really complicated to avoid the failures
> reported and the potential data losses if the so-said optimizations,
> which are actually broken, have their checks tightened a bit. So I'd
> rather not give up on this one if there are ways to prevent user-facing
> problems.
I'm not suggesting that we should give up, or that we should not give
up. I think that timeboxing it is a good idea. In other words, the
question "How much more time has to pass before we admit defeat?" was
not a rhetorical question.
As things stand, we're not doing anything, which has a cost that adds
up as time goes on. Let's be realistic. If nobody is willing to do the
work, then a reasonable person must eventually conclude that that's
because it isn't worth doing.
--
Peter Geoghegan
