On 05/11/2015 04:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 23:47, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us <mailto:br...@momjian.us>> wrote:On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:42:26PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > >The releases themselves are not the problem, but rather the volume of > >bugs and our slowness in getting additional people involved to remove > >data corruption bugs more quickly and systematically. Our reputation > >for reliability has been harmed by this inactivity. > > > > What I am arguing is that the release cycle is at least a big part > of the problem. We are trying to get so many new features that bugs > are increasing and quality is decreasing. Now that is an interesting observation --- are we too focused on patches and features to realize when we need to seriously revisit an issue? I think we are unused to bugs. We have a much lower bug rate than any other system.
True we are used to having extremely high quality releases but if you look at the release notes since say 9.2, we are seeing a much larger increase in bug rates.
It is true that generally speaking our bug rate is low in comparison to other databases. That said, I think we are also resting on some laurels here per my previous paragraph.
I think we seriously need to review our policy of adding major new features and have them enabled by default with no parameter to disable them. In the early years of PostgreSQL everything had an off switch, e.g. stats, bgwriter and even autovacuum defaulted to off for many years.
That's interesting although I am unsure of the cost of such a thing. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
