On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers