On 2024-04-08 Mo 19:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> I quite like the triage idea. But I think there's also a case for being
>> more a bit more flexible with those patches we don't throw out. A case
>> close to my heart: I'd have been very sad if the NESTED piece of
>> JSON_TABLE hadn't made the cut, which it did with a few hours to spare,
>> and I would not have been alone, far from it. I'd have been happy to
>> give Amit a few more days or a week if he needed it, for a significant
>> headline feature.
>> I know there will be those who say it's the thin end of the wedge and
>> rulez is rulez, but this is my view.
> You've certainly been around the project long enough to remember the
> times in the past when we let the schedule slip for "one more big
> patch". It just about never worked out well, so I'm definitely in
> favor of a hard deadline. The trick is to control the tendency to
> push in patches that are only almost-ready in order to nominally
> meet the deadline. (I don't pretend to be immune from that
> temptation myself, but I think I resisted it better than some
> this year.)
>
>
If we want to change how things are working I suspect we probably need
something a lot more radical than any of the suggestions I've seen
floating around. I don't know what that might be, but ISTM we're not
thinking boldly enough.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com