Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:03:56 -0300 Claudio Freire wrote: > > Ohmygosh, you have to rpm install a bunch of -devel stuff? What a massive > > hardship. > > It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the signalling. > > Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outs

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 09/06/15 00:59, David Gould wrote: I think Alphas are valuable and useful and even more so if they have release notes. For example, some of my clients are capable of fetching sources and building from scratch and filing bug reports and are often interested in particular new features. They even

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Geoff Winkless > wrote: > > > > ​I can see that, and can absolutely get behind the idea of a nightly > being > > > flagged as an alpha, since it should involve next to no develop

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:32:45PM -0400, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > > On 8 June 2015 at 17:03, Claudio Freire wrote: > > It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the > signalling. > > Just *wh

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

David G. Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > > ​I can see that, and can absolutely get behind the idea of a nightly being > > flagged as an alpha, since it should involve next to no developer time. > > > ​Nightly where? This is an international community.

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

David, * David G. Johnston (david.g.johns...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Claudio Freire > wrote: > > Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside. > > > > I do lurk here a lot and still am unsure quite often. > > > > Even simply releasing an alpha

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 2015-06-08 12:16:34 -0400, David G. Johnston wrote: > ​IIUC the master branch is always ready for testing. I don't really think so. For one we often find bugs ourselves quite quickly. But more importantly, I'd much rather have users use their precious (and thus limited!) time to test when the

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 8 June 2015 at 17:03, Claudio Freire wrote: > >> It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the signalling. >> >> Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside. >> >> I do lurk here a lot and still

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside. > > I do lurk here a lot and still am unsure quite often. > > Even simply releasing an alpha *tarball* would be useful enough. What > is needed is the signal to test, ra

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 8 June 2015 at 17:03, Claudio Freire wrote: > It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the signalling. > > Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside. > > I do lurk here a lot and still am unsure quite often. > > Even simply releasing an alpha *tarbal

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 8 June 2015 at 16:01, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless >> wrote: >> > Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be >> > rushing >> > to help test if only the PG developers r

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 8 June 2015 at 16:01, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless > wrote: > > Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be > rushing > > to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's > funny > > how they never used to do

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:01 , Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be rushing to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's funny how they never used to do it when

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/08/2015 06:21 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be rushing to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's funny how they never used to do it when those alphas were done. The type of responses you are providi

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Wow! I never knew there were all these people out there who would be rushing > to help test if only the PG developers released alpha versions. It's funny > how they never used to do it when those alphas were done. That's probably overplaying

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Among several others, On 8 June 2015 at 13:59, David Gould wrote: > I think Alphas are valuable and useful and even more so if they have > release > notes. For example, some of my clients are capable of fetching sources and > building from scratch and filing bug reports and are often interested i

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

I think Alphas are valuable and useful and even more so if they have release notes. For example, some of my clients are capable of fetching sources and building from scratch and filing bug reports and are often interested in particular new features. They even have staging infrastructure that could

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions > >>about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have > >>extensive README type documentation with them so the underly

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 6 June 2015 at 13:41, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote: > >> >> > It's much easier to work into dev/test setups if there are system >> packages as it's just a config change to an existing script. Building >> from source would require a whole new wo

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 06/06/2015 07:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the >>> observance, but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this: >>> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/messa

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/2015 07:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the observance, but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27310.1251410...@sss.pgh.pa.us htt

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Perhaps we're honoring this more in the breech than in the observance, > but I'm not making up what Tom has said about this: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27310.1251410...@sss.pgh.pa.us > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19174.129

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> Tom, for example, has previously not wanted to even bump >> catversion after beta1, which rules out a huge variety of >> possible fixes and interface changes. If we want to make a >> policy decision to change our appr

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/2015 07:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only a

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/05/2015 08:07 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: From my side, it is only recently I got some clear answers to my questions about how it worked. I think it is very important that major features have extensive README type documentation with them so the underlying principles used in the development

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Robert Haas wrote: > Tom, for example, has previously not wanted to even bump > catversion after beta1, which rules out a huge variety of > possible fixes and interface changes. If we want to make a > policy decision to change our approach, we should be up-front > about that. What?!? There hav

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Really? You genuinely don't have time to paste, say: > > mkdir -p ~/src/pgdevel > cd ~/src/pgdevel > wget https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/snapshot/dev/postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > tar xjf postgresql-snapshot.tar.bz2 > mkdir bld > cd bld > ..

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 6 June 2015 at 13:41, Sehrope Sarkuni wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless > wrote: > > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would > genuinely be prepared to download > > and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one > of the n

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely > be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already > have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only ask because I assume that > releasing > an

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote: > To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be > prepared to download > and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the > nightlies? I only ask > because I assume that releasing

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

> > > ​ ​ To play devil's advocate for a moment, is there anyone who would genuinely be prepared to download and install an alpha release who would not already have downloaded one of the nightlies? I only ask because I assume that ​releasing ​ an alpha is not zero-developer-cost and I don't believe

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Hi, On Sat, 2015-06-06 at 12:15 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If I'm not mistaken, we (Simon and me) actually discussed something > else along this line a while ago that might be worth considering. That > is, maybe we should consider time-based alpha releases. That is, we > can just decide "we w

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly >> > > stable that we'd be pretty happy to relea

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/06/15 21:07, Simon Riggs wrote: On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 5 June 2015 at 17:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly > > > stable that we'd be pretty happy to release if things go well, which > > > is a higher bar to clear. >

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: > What happened with the extension tests patches you submitted? They > seemed valuable to me, but I lost track. Those ones are registered in the queue of 9.6: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/5/187/ And this is the l

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 04:54:56PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 16:05, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Please address some of the specific issues I mentioned.  > > > I can discuss them but not because I am involved directly. I take > responsibility as a committer and have an in

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I do agree that an indefinite development freeze with unclear > parameters for resuming development and unclear goals is a bad plan. > But I think giving ourselves a little more time to, say, turn the > buildfarm consistently green, and, say, fi

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> 4. Arguable RLS security bug, EvalPlanQual() paranoia - This seems >> like another question of what the expectations around RLS actually >> are. > > In the end that's minor from the end user's perspective. I think that depends on what we ult

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/05/2015 07:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > So let's call it an alpha, or some other way of setting expectations > appropriately. But I think it's silly to maintain that the code is not in > a state where end-user testing is useful. They just have to understand > that they can't trust it with produ

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > We don't have a clear definition of what Beta means. For me, Beta has always > meant "trial software, please test". > > I don't think anybody will say anything bad about us if we release a beta > and then later pull some of the features because

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: > > Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly > > stable that we'd be pretty happy to release if things go well, which > > is a higher bar to clear. > > We don't have a clear definition of what Beta means. For

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 6/5/15 10:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: The other side of that coin is that we might get useful comments from testers on how the feature ought to work. I don't agree with the notion that all feature details must be graven on stone tablets before we start trying to get feedback from people outside th

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 6/4/15 11:28 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: * More configuration variations; ./configure, initdb options, and *.conf * More edge-case testing. (ie: what happens to each varlena as it approaches 1GB? 1B tables test. Etc.) * More race-condition testing, like the tool Peter used heavily during ON C

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 5 June 2015 at 16:05, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Please address some of the specific issues I mentioned. I can discuss them but not because I am involved directly. I take responsibility as a committer and have an interest from that perspective. In my role at 2ndQuadrant, I approved all of the

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 2015-06-05 11:20:52 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't maintain that end-user testing is unuseful at this point. Unless I misunderstand you, and you're not saying that user level testing wouldn't be helpful right now, I'm utterly baffled. There's loads of user-exposed features that desperately

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 05:36:41PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > I don't think anything as localized as 'do nothing but bugfixes for a > while and then carry on' actually will solve the problem. We need to > find and reallocate resources to put more emphasis on review, robustness > and refactoring

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > In terms of specific testing improvements, things I think we need to have > > covered and runnable on the buildfarm are: > > > > * pg_dump and pg_restore testing (because it's scary we don't do this) > > We do test

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Robert Haas writes: > I don't maintain that end-user testing is unuseful at this point. I > do maintain that it would be better to (1) finish fixing the known > multixact bugs and (2) clean up some of the open items before we make > a big push in that direction. For example, consider this item f

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 2015-06-05 11:05:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > To release 9.5 beta would be to get back into that cycle, and I am not > sure we are ready for that. I think the fact we have multiple people > all reviewing the multi-xact code now (and not dealing with 9.5) is a > good sign. If we were focuse

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: > I do agree that an indefinite development freeze with unclear > parameters for resuming development and unclear goals is a bad plan. > But I think giving ourselves a little more time to, say, turn the > buildfarm consistently green, and, say, fix the

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing. > >> The code is available for public testing right now. > > Only to people who have the time and a

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 5 June 2015 at 15:00, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing. > > The code is available for public testing right now. People test when they get the signal from us, not before. While what

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 3 June 2015 at 18:21, Josh Berkus wrote: >   > > I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review > of code, without adding any new automated tests or other non-manual > tools for improving stabili

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing. > The code is available for public testing right now. Only to people who have the time and ability to pull the code from git and build from source. I

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > Agreed. Cleanup can occur while we release code for public testing. The code is available for public testing right now. Stamping it a beta implies that we think it's something fairly stable that we'd be pretty happy to release if things go wel

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 3 June 2015 at 18:21, Josh Berkus wrote: > I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review > of code, without adding any new automated tests or other non-manual > tools for improving stability, then it's a waste of time; we might as > well just release the beta, and our

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > On 4 June 2015 at 22:43, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> Josh, >> >> * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: >> > I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review >> > of code, without adding any new automated tests or ot

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 4 June 2015 at 22:43, Stephen Frost wrote: > Josh, > > * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: > > I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review > > of code, without adding any new automated tests or other non-manual > > tools for improving stability, then it's a wast

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

Josh, * Josh Berkus (j...@agliodbs.com) wrote: > I would argue that if we delay 9.5 in order to do a 100% manual review > of code, without adding any new automated tests or other non-manual > tools for improving stability, then it's a waste of time; we might as > well just release the beta, and ou

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 2015-06-03 10:21:28 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > So, historically, this is what the period between feature freeze and > beta1 was for; the "consolidation" phase was supposed to deal with this. > The problem over the last few years, by my observation, has been that > consolidation has been left t

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

On 06/03/2015 06:50 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > Subject changed from "Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release". > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> If we have to totally stop feature development until we are all happy >> with the code we have, so be it. If people fee