On 5/11/21 2:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-May-11, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Hmm. Is that really something we should do after feature freeze? A >> 25% degradation for matview refresh may be a problem for a lot of >> users and could be an upgrade stopper. Another thing we could do is >> also to revert 7db0cd2 and 39b66a9 from the v14 tree, and work on a >> proper solution for this performance problem for matviews for 15~. >> >> Thoughts? > My main thought while reading this thread is about the rules of feature > freeze. I mean, we are indeed in feature freeze, so no new features > should be added. But that doesn't mean we are in code freeze. For the > period starting now and until RC (which is a couple of months away > still) we should focus on ensuring that the features we do have are in > as good a shape as possible. If that means adding more code to fix > problems/bugs/performance problems in the existing code, so be it. > I mean, reverting is not the only tool we have. > > Yes, reverting has its place. Moreover, threats of reversion have their > place. People should definitely be working towards finding solutions to > the problems in their commits lest they be reverted. However, freezing > *people* by saying that no fixes are acceptable other than reverts ... > is not good. > > So I agree with what Andres is saying downthread: let's apply the fix he > proposed (it's not even that invasive anyway), and investigate the > remaining 5% and see if we can find a solution. If by the end of the > beta process we can definitely find no solution to the problem, we can > revert the whole lot then. >
I agree with all of this. Right now I'm only concerned if there isn't work apparently being done on some issue. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
