On 2015-06-10 01:57:22 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > 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.
I'm not meaning that we should actively strive to find as many things to refactor as possible (yes, over-emphasized a bit). But that we shouldn't skip refactoring if we notice something structurally bad, just because it's been that way and we don't want to touch something "working". That argument has e.g. been made repeatedly for xlog.c contents. My feeling is that we're reaching the stage where a significant number of bugs are added because code is structured "needlessly" complicated and/or repetitive. And better testing can only catch so much - often enough somebody has to think of all the possible corner cases. > 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. Sure, increasing testing and reviews are good independently. And especially testing actually makes refactoring much more realistic. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
