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 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
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 new
On 30 May 2015 at 05:08, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
Why? A large portion of the input required to go from beta towards a
release is from actual users. To see when
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 last one sounds
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
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de 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
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com 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
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 for
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)
On 2015-05-31 11:55:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com 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
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 that; and
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 coverage,
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
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
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
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de 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
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
On May 30, 2015 2:19:00 PM PDT, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de 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
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
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-items
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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.
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
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 now.
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
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:37:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
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
* 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 beta
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, 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
On May 29, 2015 8:56:40 PM PDT, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de 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:
On May 29, 2015 9:08:07 PM PDT, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net 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.
* 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 factor.
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
* Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net 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
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
* 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 sfr...@snowman.net 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
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:01:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net 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
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:01 PM, 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'm personally
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net 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
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 that
On May 29, 2015 2:12:24 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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?
52 matches
Mail list logo
