On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, but not all levels of risk are equal. Jumping out of a plane > carries some risk of death whether or not you have a parachute, but > that does not mean that we shouldn't worry about whether you have one > or not before you jump. > > In this case, I think it is pretty clear that hard-disabling the > feature by always setting old_snapshot_threshold to -1 carries less > risk of breaking unrelated things than removing code that caters to > the feature all over the code base. Perhaps it is not quite as > dramatic as my parachute example, but I think it is pretty clear all > the same that one is a lot more likely to introduce new bugs than the > other. A carefully targeted modification of a few lines of code in 1 > file just about has to carry less risk than ~1k lines of code spread > across 40 or so files.
Yeah, that's certainly true. But is that fine point really what anybody disagrees about? I didn't think that Andres was focussed on literally ripping it out over just disabling it. > Is there any chance that you're planning to look into the details? > That would certainly be welcome from my perspective. I had a few other things that I was going to work on this week, but those seems less urgent. I'll take a look into it, and report back what I find. -- Peter Geoghegan
