On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > Yeah, a lot of the ideas in this thread, while reasonable, are of the > sort "We need to be better about ..." which sounds a lot like "I need to > be better about exercising". A system based purely on distributed > willpower isn't going to last very long, as we are finding out.
I have often thought that contributors have a tendency to be unrealistic about how effective procedural changes can be in alleviating our problems. We have always relied heavily on individual acts of heroism. I expect no great changes there. For example, you can't really expect a CF app SQL query to give you anything greater than an extremely noisy idea of how much "review goodwill" somebody has banked. My oldest pending patch in the CF app is a boring refactoring patch that no one asked me to write. Should that be held against me? > My feeble attempts at alleviating this problem a bit are adding more > testing and removing outdated functionality, but both of those are also > incredibly abuse-prone activities. I think that we've learned some lessons from the problems with 9.3. I don't think that one of those lessons was "take more time to release". There is reason to doubt that that would have changed matters one bit with 9.3. It might be a good idea to formally state what those lessons are. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers