Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> As far as that last goes, we *did* get the buildfarm fixed to be all
> >> v11 scripts, so I thought we were ready to move forward on trying
> >> 09f08930f again. It's too late to consider that for v13, but
> >> perhaps it'd be reasonable to change the SCRAM default now? Not sure.
>
> > I feel like it is. I'm not even sure that I agree that it's really too
> > late to consider 09f08930f considering that's it's a pretty minor code
> > change and the up-side to that is having reasonable defaults out of the
> > box, as it were, something we have *long* been derided for.
>
> Well, the argument against changing right now is that it would invalidate
> portability testing done against beta1, which users would be justifiably
> upset about.
I don't think we're in complete agreement about the amount of
portability testing that's done with our beta source builds. To that
point, however, the lack of such testing happening, if there is a lack,
is on us just as much as anyone else- we should be testing, to the
extent possible, as many variations of our configuration options as we
can across as many platforms as we can in the buildfarm. If a
non-default setting doesn't work on one platform or another, that's a
bug to fix regardless and doesn't really impact the question of "what
should be the default".
> I'm +1 for changing both of these things as soon as we branch for v14,
> but I feel like it's a bit late for v13. If we aren't feature-frozen
> now, when will we be?
I really don't consider changing of defaults to be on the same level as
implementation of whole features, even if changing those defaults
requires a few lines of code to go with the change.
Thanks,
Stephen