Re: DecodeInterval fixes

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 1:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 4:13 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> The ECPG datetime datatype support code has been basically unmaintained
> >> for years, and has diverged quite far at this point from the core code.
>
> > I was under the impression that anything in the postgresql.git
> > repository is considered core, and hence maintained as one unit, from
> > release to release.
>
> When I say that ecpglib is next door to unmaintained, I'm just stating
> the facts on the ground; project policy is irrelevant.  That situation
> is not likely to change until somebody steps up to do (a lot of) work
> on it, which is probably unlikely to happen unless we start getting
> actual complaints from ECPG users.  For the meantime, what's there now
> seems to be satisfactory to whoever is using it ... which might be
> nobody?
>
> In any case, you don't have to look far to notice that some parts of
> the tree are maintained far more actively than others.  ecpglib is
> just one of the more identifiable bits that's receiving little love.
> The quality of the code under contrib/ is wildly variable, and even
> the server code itself has backwaters.  (For instance, the "bit" types,
> which aren't even in the standard anymore; or the geometric types,
> or "money".)

Thanks for sharing your view on different parts of the code. This give
a clear direction if someone would be interested in stepping up.

As part of my mentoring a GSoC 2023 participant, last night we were
looking at the TODO wiki page, for something for the mentee to pick up
next. I feel the staleness/deficiencies you mention above are not
captured in the TODO wiki page. It'd be nice if these were documented,
so that newcomers to the community can pick up work that they feel is
an easy lift for them.

> By and large, I don't see this unevenness of maintenance effort as
> a problem.  It's more like directing our limited resources into the
> most useful places.  Code that isn't getting worked on is either not
> used at all by anybody, or it serves the needs of those who use it
> well enough already.  Since it's difficult to tell which of those
> cases applies, removing code just because it's not been improved
> lately is a hard choice to sell.  But so is putting maintenance effort
> into code that there might be little audience for.  In the end we
> solve this via the principle of "scratch your own itch": if somebody
> is concerned enough about a particular piece of code to put their own
> time into improving it, then great, it'll get improved.
>
> > Benign neglect doesn't sound nice from a user's/consumer's
> > perspective. Can it be labeled (i.e. declared as such in docs) as
> > deprecated.
>
> Deprecation would imply that we're planning to remove it, which
> we are not.

Good to know. Sorry I took "benign neglect" to mean that there's no
willingness to improve it. This makes it clear that community wants to
improve and maintain ECPG, it's just a matter of someone volunteering,
and better use of the resources available.



Best regards,
Gurjeet
http://Gurje.et