On 2024-04-08 Mo 19:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
I quite like the triage idea. But I think there's also a case for being
more a bit more flexible with those patches we don't throw out. A case
close to my heart: I'd have been very sad if the NESTED piece of
JSON_TABLE hadn't made the cut, which it did with a few hours to spare,
and I would not have been alone, far from it. I'd have been happy to
give Amit a few more days or a week if he needed it, for a significant
headline feature.
I know there will be those who say it's the thin end of the wedge and
rulez is rulez, but this is my view.
You've certainly been around the project long enough to remember the
times in the past when we let the schedule slip for "one more big
patch". It just about never worked out well, so I'm definitely in
favor of a hard deadline. The trick is to control the tendency to
push in patches that are only almost-ready in order to nominally
meet the deadline. (I don't pretend to be immune from that
temptation myself, but I think I resisted it better than some
this year.)
If we want to change how things are working I suspect we probably need
something a lot more radical than any of the suggestions I've seen
floating around. I don't know what that might be, but ISTM we're not
thinking boldly enough.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
