On 30 May 2015 at 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >> Why? A large portion of the input required to go from beta towards a
> >> release is from actual users. To see when things break, what confuses
> >> them and such.
>
>
On 06/04/2015 12:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-04 11:51:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So, I'm all for refactoring and adding abstractions where it makes sense,
but it's not going to solve design problems.
I personally don't really see the multixact changes being that bad on
the
On 2015-06-04 11:51:44 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I think this explanation is wrong. I agree that there are many places that
> would be good to refactor - like StartupXLOG() - but the multixact code was
> not too bad in that regard. IIRC the patch included some refactoring, it
> added some
On 05/30/2015 11:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I don't think it's primarily a problem of lack of review; although that
is a large problem. I think the biggest systematic problem is that the
compound complexity of postgres has increased dramatically over the
years. Features have added complexity l
On 05/31/2015 03:51 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 5/30/15 8:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
Heikki's WAL format changes? That la
All,
Just my $0.02 on PR: it has never been a PR problem to do multiple
update releases, as long as we could provide a good reason for doing so
(like: fix A is available now and we didn't want to hold it back waiting
for fix B).
It's always a practical question of (a) packaging and (b) deployment
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2015-06-01 12:32:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are good reasons to write the release notes all in one batch:
>> otherwise you don't get any uniformity of editorial style.
> I agree that that's a good reason for major releases, I do however
> wonder if it'd not be a
On 2015-06-01 12:32:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There are good reasons to write the release notes all in one batch:
> otherwise you don't get any uniformity of editorial style.
I agree that that's a good reason for major releases, I do however
wonder if it'd not be a good idea to do differently fo
Jim Nasby writes:
> FWIW, I've always wondered why we don't create an empty next-version
> release notes as part of stamping a major release and expect patch
> authors to add to it. I realize that likely creates merge conflicts, but
> that seems less work than doing it all at the end. (Or maybe
On 5/29/15 5:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
could expect that anyone committing a user-visible semantics change should
>update the release notes themselves.
Yes, that would be nice.
FWIW, I've always wondered why we don't create an empty next-version
release notes as part of stamping a major rel
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 09:50:25AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > +1. Complexity has increased, and we are actually never at 100% sure
>> > that a given bug fix does not have side effects on other things, hence
>> > I think that a portion
On 2015-05-31 11:55:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> FYI, I realize that one additional thing that has discouraged code
> >> reorganization is the additional backpatch overhead. I think we now
> >> need to accept that our reorganization-adverse approach might have cost
> >>
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> FYI, I realize that one additional thing that has discouraged code
> >> reorganization is the additional backpatch overhead. I think we now
> >> need to accept that our reorganization-adverse approach might hav
Bruce Momjian writes:
>> FYI, I realize that one additional thing that has discouraged code
>> reorganization is the additional backpatch overhead. I think we now
>> need to accept that our reorganization-adverse approach might have cost
>> us some reliability, and that reorganization is going to
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 09:50:25AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > +1. Complexity has increased, and we are actually never at 100% sure
> > that a given bug fix does not have side effects on other things, hence
> > I think that a portion of this technical debt is the lack of
> > regression test cov
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 08:15:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> So, I think we have built up a lot of technical debt. And very little
> >> effort has been made to fix th
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
>> Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds really scary to me;
>> it's painful if not impossible to fix the WAL format in a minor
>> release.
>
> I think we a
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> So, I think we have built up a lot of technical debt. And very little
>> effort has been made to fix that; and in the cases where people have the
>> reception has often been co
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:47:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The bottom line is that we just can't keep going on like this. The fact
> > we put out a release two weeks ago, then need to put out a fix release
> > for that, but we have more multi-xact bugs to fix and can't decide if we
> > sho
On 05/30/2015 06:51 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/30/15 8:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds r
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:26:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Frankly, based on how I feel now, I would have no problem doing 9.5 in
> > 2016 and saying we have a lot of retooling to do. We could say we have
> > gotten too far out ahe
On 5/30/15 8:38 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
>>> Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds really scary to me;
>>> it's painful
On 05/30/2015 03:48 PM, David Steele wrote:
On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds really scary to me;
it's painful if not impossible to fix the WAL format in a minor
release
On 5/30/15 2:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> What, in this release, could break things badly? RLS? Grouping sets?
> Heikki's WAL format changes? That last one sounds really scary to me;
> it's painful if not impossible to fix the WAL format in a minor
> release.
I would argue Heikki's WAL stuff is a
On May 30, 2015 2:19:00 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>Andres Freund writes:
>> * The signal handling, sinval, client communication changes. Little
>to
>> none problems so far, but it's complex stuff. These changes are an
>> example of potential for problems due to changes to reduce
>> complexity
Andres Freund writes:
> * The signal handling, sinval, client communication changes. Little to
> none problems so far, but it's complex stuff. These changes are an
> example of potential for problems due to changes to reduce
> complexity...
As far as that goes, it's quite clear from the bui
On 2015-05-30 14:10:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It's clear - at least to me - that we need to put more resources into
> stabilizing the new multixact system. This is killing us. If we can't
> stabilize this, people will go use some other database.
I agree. Perhaps I don't see things quite as d
Hi Bruce, Everyone,
On 2015-05-30 11:45:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me share something that people have told me privately but don't want
> to state publicly (at least with attribution), and that is that we have
> seen great increases in feature development (often funded), without a
> corr
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Let me share something that people have told me privately but don't want
>> to state publicly (at least with attribution), and that is that we have
>> seen great increases in feature development (often funded), without a
>> corresponding incr
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Frankly, based on how I feel now, I would have no problem doing 9.5 in
> 2016 and saying we have a lot of retooling to do. We could say we have
> gotten too far out ahead of ourselves and we need to regroup and
> restructure the code.
I wou
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:06:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If that means it's stable, +1 from me.
>>
>> I dispute, on every level, the notion that not releasing a beta means
>> that we can't work on things in parallel. We can work on a
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:06:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If that means it's stable, +1 from me.
>
> I dispute, on every level, the notion that not releasing a beta means
> that we can't work on things in parallel. We can work on all of the
> things on the open items list in parallel right n
On 05/30/2015 06:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
2017? Really? Is there any need for that hyperbole?
Frankly, based on how I feel now, I would have no problem doing 9.5 in
2016 and saying we have a lot of retooling to do. We could say we have
gotten too far out ahead of ourselves and we need to
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think your position is completely nuts. The GROUPING SETS code is
> desperately in need of testing. The custom-plan code is desperately
> in need of fixing and testing. The multixact code is desperately
> in need of testing. The open-items
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 08:56:53AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:08:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > desperately in need of testing. The custom-plan code is desperately
> > in need of fixing and testing. The multixact code is desperately
> > in need of testing. The open
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:08:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> desperately in need of testing. The custom-plan code is desperately
> in need of fixing and testing. The multixact code is desperately
> in need of testing. The open-items list has several other problems
> besides those. All of those p
On May 29, 2015 9:08:07 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>I think your position is completely nuts.
Yeehaa.
> The GROUPING SETS code is
>desperately in need of testing. The custom-plan code is desperately
>in need of fixing and testing. The multixact code is desperately
>in need of testing.
And the
On May 29, 2015 8:56:40 PM PDT, Robert Haas wrote:
>On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> On 2015-05-29 18:02:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, I think we ought to take at least a few weeks to try to do a
>bit
>>> of code review and clean up what we can from the open item
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why? A large portion of the input required to go from beta towards a
>> release is from actual users. To see when things break, what confuses
>> them and such.
> I have two concerns:
> 1. I'm concerned that once we r
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 18:02:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, I think we ought to take at least a few weeks to try to do a bit
>> of code review and clean up what we can from the open items list.
>
> Why? A large portion of the input required to
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 18:02:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, I think we ought to take at least a few weeks to try to do a bit
> > of code review and clean up what we can from the open items list.
>
> Why? A large portion of the input required to go from
On 2015-05-29 18:02:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I think we ought to take at least a few weeks to try to do a bit
> of code review and clean up what we can from the open items list.
Why? A large portion of the input required to go from beta towards a
release is from actual users. To see wh
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:37:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Do we need release notes for an alpha? Once I do the release notes, it
> > is possible to miss subtle changes in the code that aren't mentioned in
> > commit messages.
>
> If the commit message isn't clear abou
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm personally kind of astonished that we're even thinking about beta
>> so soon. I mean, we at least need to go through the stuff listed
>> here, I think:
>> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
>
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Do we need release notes for an alpha? Once I do the release notes, it
> is possible to miss subtle changes in the code that aren't mentioned in
> commit messages.
If the commit message isn't clear about something, you'd likely miss the
issue anyway, no? Anyway, once the
On May 29, 2015 2:12:24 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we
>ought
>> > to put out some kind of release that we can enc
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:04:59PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we ought
> > to put out some kind of release that we can encourage people to test.
>
> I also do think it's important
On 2015-05-29 16:37:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I think we ought
> to put out some kind of release that we can encourage people to test.
I also do think it's important that we put out a beta (or alpha)
relatively soon. Both because we actual
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm personally kind of astonished that we're even thinking about beta
> so soon. I mean, we at least need to go through the stuff listed
> here, I think:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.5_Open_Items
Well, maybe we ought to call it an alpha not a beta, but I
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's possible that we ought to give up on a pre-conference beta.
> Certainly a whole lot of time that I'd hoped would go into reviewing
> 9.5 feature commits has instead gone into back-branch bug chasing this
> week.
I'm personally kind of astoni
On 05/29/2015 01:03 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
It's possible that we ought to give up on a pre-conference beta.
Certainly a whole lot of time that I'd hoped would go into reviewing
9.5 feature commits has instead gone into back-branch bug chasing this
week.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:01:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> >> I am unclear if we are anywhere near ready for beta1 even in June. Are
> >> we?
>
> > I'm all about having that discussion... but can we do it on another
> > thre
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> It's possible that we ought to give up on a pre-conference beta.
> Certainly a whole lot of time that I'd hoped would go into reviewing
> 9.5 feature commits has instead gone into back-branch bug chasing this
> week.
I guess that's what I'm getting at. We
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
>> I am unclear if we are anywhere near ready for beta1 even in June. Are
>> we?
> I'm all about having that discussion... but can we do it on another
> thread or at least wait til we've decided about the back-branch
> releases?
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:32:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I know Josh doesn't like to do beta1 releases concurrently with back
> > branches because it confuses the PR messaging. But we could make an
> > exception perhaps; or do all those releases the
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:32:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I know Josh doesn't like to do beta1 releases concurrently with back
> branches because it confuses the PR messaging. But we could make an
> exception perhaps; or do all those releases the same week but announce
> the beta the day after t
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > Magnus Hagander writes:
> > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> I think there's no way that we wait more than one a
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander writes:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I think there's no way that we wait more than one additional week to
> push
> > >> the fsync fix. So the prob
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think there's no way that we wait more than one additional week to push
> >> the fsync fix. So the problem is not with scheduling the update releases,
> >> it's with wheth
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think there's no way that we wait more than one additional week to push
>> the fsync fix. So the problem is not with scheduling the update releases,
>> it's with whether we can also fit in a 9.5 beta release before P
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> (I can't see doing a beta *during* PGCon week. I for one am going to be
> on an airplane at the time I'd normally have to be Doing Release Stuff.)
[...]
> Or we just let the beta slide till after PGCon, but then I think we're
> missing some excitement facto
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost
> wrote:
> >> I just caution that we appreciate PGCon coming up and that we do our
> >> best to avoid running into a case where we have to push it further due
> >> to ev
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I just caution that we appreciate PGCon coming up and that we do our
>> best to avoid running into a case where we have to push it further due
>> to everyone being at the conference.
> If we plan it, we certainly
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > I think we should postpone next week's release. I have been hard at
> > > work on the multixact-related bugs that were reported in 9.4.2
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > I think we should postpone next week's release. I have been hard at
> > work on the multixact-related bugs that were reported in 9.4.2 and
> > 9.3.7, and the subsequent bugs found by code-rea
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 02:54:31PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > I think we should postpone next week's release. I have been hard at
> > work on the multixact-related bugs that were reported in 9.4.2 and
> > 9.3.7, and the subsequent bugs found by c
66 matches
Mail list logo
