On 2016-06-06 16:41:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I really don't understand how you can not weigh in on the original > thread leading up to my mid-March commits and say "hey, this needs a > better testing tool", and then when you finally get around to > reviewing it in May, I'm supposed to drop everything and write one > immediately.
Meh. Asking you to "drop everything" and starting to push a month later are very different things. The reason I'm pushing is because this atm seems likely to slip enough that we'll decide "can't do this for 9.6". And I think that'd be seriously bad. > Why do you get two months from the time of commit to weigh in but I > get no time to respond? Really? You've started to apply pressure to fix things days after they've been discovered. It's been a month. > For my part, I thought I *had* > written a testing tool - that's what pg_visibility is and that's what > I used to test the feature before committing it. I think looking only at page level data, and not at row level data is is insufficient. And I think we need to make $tool output the data in a way that only returns data if things are wrong (that can be a pre-canned query). > Now, you think that's not good enough, and I respect your opinion, but > it's not as if you said this back when this was being committed. Or > at least if you did, I don't remember it. I think I mentioned testing ages ago, but not around the commit, no. I kind of had assumed that it was there. I don't think that's really relevant though. Backend flushing was discussed and benchmarked over months as well; and while I don't agree with your, conclusion it's absolutely sane of you to push for changing the default on that; even if you didn't immediately push back. > I know there's a patch. Both Tom and I are skeptical about whether it > adds value, and I really don't think you've spelled out in as much > detail why you think it will help as I have why I think it won't. The primary reason I think it'll help because it allows users/testers to run a simple one-line command (VACUUM (scan_all);)in their database, and they'll get a clear "WARNING: XXX is bad" message if something's broken, and nothing if things are ok. Vacuum isn't a bad place for that, because it'll be the place that removes dead item pointers and such if things were wrongly labeled; and because we historically have emitted warnings from there. The more complex stuff we ask testers to run, the less likely it is that they'll actually do that. I'd also be ok with adding & documenting (beta release notes) CREATE EXTENSION pg_visibility; SELECT relname FROM pg_class WHERE relkind IN ('r', 'm') AND NOT pg_check_visibility(oid); or something olong those lines. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers