Hi, On 2021-04-14 20:08:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:55 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:33 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I'm getting a bit bothered by the speed at which you're pushing fairly > > > substantial behavioural for vacuum. In this case without even a warning > > > that you're about to do so. > > > > To a large degree the failsafe is something that is written in the > > hope that it will never be needed. This is unlike most other things, > > and has its own unique risks. > > > > I think that the proper thing to do is to accept a certain amount of > > risk in this area. The previous status quo was *appalling*, and so it > > seems very unlikely that the failsafe hasn't mostly eliminated a lot > > of risk for users. That factor is not everything, but it should count > > for a lot. The only way that we're going to have total confidence in > > anything like this is through the experience of it mostly working over > > several releases. > > I think this is largely missing the point Andres was making, which is > that you made a significant behavior change after feature freeze > without any real opportunity for discussion. More generally, you've > changed a bunch of other stuff relatively quickly based on input from > a relatively limited number of people. Now, it's fair to say that it's > often hard to get input on things, and sometimes you have to just take > your best shot and hope you're right. But in this particular case, you > didn't even try to get broader participation or buy-in. That's not > good.
Yep, that was what I was trying to get at. - Andres
