On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 08:37:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Aren't they all "known issues"? You need to be a lot clearer about what
> >> distinction you intend to draw, and why it's so important that it
> >> deserves to be the principal classification metric for TODO.
>
> > ... However, there is blur border line between them ...
>
> I don't think we want the top-level division of TODO to be a
> classification that is inherently in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.
> There would be way too much time wasted arguing what goes where,
> to little purpose --- because, quite frankly, whether someone else
> thinks XYZ is an issue has nothing to do with whether any given
> developer is going to spend time on it tomorrow.
A good test might be: would a release be held because of this item
(assuming it was introduced by something in that release).
BTW, a specific example that comes to mind is cluster disobeying MVCC.
IIRC that results in data integrity issues, and I suspect that it would
end up holding a release. ISTM this should be a high priority item
because of the data integrity issue.
> It might be useful to pick up the "postgresql gotchas" list that's
> out on the net someplace, and expand and maintain it as a resource
> oriented mainly at new users: here are some things you might not have
> expected to behave like that. I don't think this should have anything
> directly to do with TODO though.
That is an interesting idea, though since the author of that list is
already doing the work to maintain it, maybe we just point people there
(which has the bonus of letting them see that there's a much larger
MySQL gotchas list...)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461