Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > I like Andres' suggestion upthread of setting a deadline and > > determining to bounce the patch if it's not committed by that date. > > If it turns out we have to bounce it, that stinks, but I don't think > > it makes sense to go to beta with a huge, barely-tested pile of code > > in the tree. Not that the testing Heikki and Fujii Masao have been > > doing until now hasn't been good, but it's not nearly as rigorous as > > what we will get when all of our users start banging on it. > > This argument would hold more water if there weren't *already* a huge, > barely-tested pile of code in the tree, namely HS. If you think that's > anywhere near ready to go to beta, I'm afraid I'd better disillusion > you immediately.
I agree with Tom's analysis. HS is very complex, while SR is more mechanical. We might find that in the end SR was stable before HS. I think we should stay on course and see where we are when Heikki is ready for a commit of SR. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
