On 15 July 2015 at 05:58, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > If it's > > > to stay, it *must* get a line-by-line review from some committer-level > > > person; and I think there are other more important things for us to be > > > doing for 9.5. > > > > > > > Honestly, I am very surprised by this. > > Tom's partial review found quite a crop of unvarnished bugs: > > 1. sample node can give different tuples across rescans within an executor > run > 2. missing dependency machinery to restrict dropping a sampling extension > 3. missing "pg_dump --binary-upgrade" treatment > 4. "potential core dumps due to dereferencing values that could be null" > 5. factually incorrect comments > 6. null argument checks in strict functions > 7. failure to check for constisnull > 8. "failure to sanity-check" ntuples > 9. arithmetic errors in random_relative_prime() > > (That's after sifting out design counterproposals, feature requests, and > other > topics of regular disagreement. I erred on the side of leaving things off > that list.) Finding one or two like that during a complete post-commit > review > would be business as usual. Finding nine in a partial review diagnoses a > critical shortfall in pre-commit review vigilance. Fixing the bugs found > to > date will not cure that shortfall. A qualified re-review could cure it. > Thank you for the summary of points. I agree with that list. I will work on the re-review as you suggest. 1 and 4 relate to the sample API exposed, which needs some rework. We'll see how big that is; at this time I presume not that hard, but I will wait for Petr's opinion also when he returns on Friday. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
