On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:18:37PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-06-03 09:50:49 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > Second, I would define the subject matter as "bug fixes, testing and > > review", not "restructuring, testing and review." Different code > > structures are clearest to different hackers. Restructuring, on > > average, adds bugs even more quickly than feature development adds > > them. > > I can't agree with this. While I agree with not doing large > restructuring for 9.5, I think we can't affort not to refactor for > clarity, even if that introduces bugs. Noticeable parts of our code have > to frequently be modified for new features and are badly structured at > the same time. While restructuring will may temporarily increase the > number of bugs in the short term, it'll decrease the number of bugs long > term while increasing the number of potential contributors and new > features. That's obviously not to say we should just refactor for the > sake of it.
I think I agree with everything after your first sentence. I liked your specific proposal to split StartupXLOG(), but making broad-appeal restructuring proposals is hard. I doubt we would get good results by casting a wide net for restructuring ideas. Automated testing has a lower barrier to entry and is far less liable to make things worse instead of better. I can hope for good results from a TestSuiteFest, but not from a RestructureFest. That said, if folks initiate compelling restructure proposals, we should be willing to risk bugs from them like we risk bugs to acquire new features. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
