On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 06:54:05PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I don't know about any of that, but something has to give. How much >> more time has to pass before we admit defeat? At a certain point, that >> is the responsible thing to do. > > Well, for this one it is not really complicated to avoid the failures > reported and the potential data losses if the so-said optimizations, > which are actually broken, have their checks tightened a bit. So I'd > rather not give up on this one if there are ways to prevent user-facing > problems.
I'm not suggesting that we should give up, or that we should not give up. I think that timeboxing it is a good idea. In other words, the question "How much more time has to pass before we admit defeat?" was not a rhetorical question. As things stand, we're not doing anything, which has a cost that adds up as time goes on. Let's be realistic. If nobody is willing to do the work, then a reasonable person must eventually conclude that that's because it isn't worth doing. -- Peter Geoghegan
