On 25/09/17 20:18, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2017-09-24 13:36:56 +0300, Alvaro Hernandez wrote:
However, if DMS uses it for what I'd call production use, I assume it is
actually production quality. I bet they do enough testing, and don't ship
software to potentially millions of customers if it doesn't work well. So...
first, I'd consider this a a sign of robustness.
You've been in software for how long? ... ;) There's quite mixed
experiences with DMS.
Actually long enough to understand that if someone "big" calls it
production quality, we should not be pickier and assume it is --whether
it is or not. People will accept it as such, and that's good enough.
;)
FWIW, I don't think there's a huge problem w/ using test_decoding - the
output isn't pretty but it's parseable. It's too verbose due to
repeating column & type names (which also slows down), but...
Everything is parseable. I don't have a big problem with that.
Stability is another issue: as long as it supports high volume
operations and doesn't break, it's acceptable enough.
Álvaro
--
Alvaro Hernandez
-----------
OnGres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
