On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:46:35PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 5/11/21 2:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 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.
Well, that's an option on the table and a possibility, so I am listing it as a possible exit path as a potential solution, as much as a different optimization is another exit path to take care of this item :) >> 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. If that's the consensus reached, that's fine by me as long as we don't keep a 25% performance regression. Now, looking at the patch proposed, I have to admit that this looks like some redesign of an existing feature, so that stresses me a bit in a period when we are aiming at making things stable, because this has a risk of making a part of the code more unstable. And I've had my share of calls over the last years in such situations, not only with Postgres, FWIW, so I may just sound like a conservative guy with a conservative hat. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
