On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Alvaro Hernandez <a...@ongres.com> wrote:
> > > On 25/09/17 22:13, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Alvaro Hernandez <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. > I am not saying we shouldn't have that. I am saying that the argument "if someone big calls it production quality, we should not be pickier and assume it is" is incorrect. And yes, I have used test_decoding in production multiple times. And yes, there are good reasons why it's called *test* decoding, and should only be used in production in fairly simple cases :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
