On 25/09/17 22:13, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alvaro Hernandez <a...@ongres.com
<mailto:a...@ongres.com>> wrote:
On 25/09/17 20:18, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-09-24 13:36:56 +0300, Alvaro Hernandez wrote:
However, if DMS uses it for what I'd call production
use, I assume it is
actually production quality. I bet they do enough testing,
and don't ship
software to potentially millions of customers if it
doesn't work well. So...
first, I'd consider this a a sign of robustness.
You've been in software for how long? ... ;) There's quite mixed
experiences with DMS.
Actually long enough to understand that if someone "big" calls
it production quality, we should not be pickier and assume it is
--whether it is or not. People will accept it as such, and that's
good enough.
Historically the fact that we have been pickier than many of the
"someone big":s is exactly how we ended up with the codebase and
relative stability we have today.
Just because someone is big doesn't mean they know what's right. In
fact, more often than not the opposite turns out to be true.
Note that I'm not here supporting test_decoding. I'm just saying is
all what is available in-core for 9.4-9.6, and it seems someone with
potentially a lot of users tested it and is using it in its own
solution. Ask me if I would like an in-core, well tested, performant,
with an easy to parse format, and efficient, for 9.4-9.6? My answer
would be an immediate 'yes'. But since this is not going to happen,
test_decoding is good that is good enough, lucky us, because otherwise
there would not be a good solution on this front.
Álvaro
--
Alvaro Hernandez
-----------
OnGres
