Re: [HACKERS] v6.1 buffers and performance

At 6:37 PM 6/8/97, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>> The priorities seem obvious to me:  1) fix the array bounds problems.  (If
>> the fix is found after the 6.1 release then *immediately* release patches
>> and/or version 6.1.1.)  2) Fix memory leaks in the parent PostMaster.
>> (Make a 6.2 release ASAP.)  3) Fix memory leaks in the child processes,
>> unless they can be determined to be unimportant for any conceivable
>> transaction.

>
>Henry, my first reaction was probably pretty similar to yours but:
>
>1) postgres is already in _successful_ use
>2) the latest release is more solid than the last

We may not be so far apart.  1&2 are the reasons why I did not suggest
holding off on the 6.1 release.

>3) _all_ the code is inherited, and is something of an unknown quantity

OTOH 3 is why I think it important to use tools like Purify to create known
characteristics when possible.  When they find serious problems we should
provide fixes as soon as possible.

>4) if the development team waited until the software were perfect, we
>would have never seen it and probably never would.

Well this is always true of hardware as well as software.  In NASA we have
a bit of a problem sending out a repair crew after a spacecraft is
launched, but we do sometimes launch things anyway.  Tom (I'm sure) and I
could both tell stories, but it gets a bit off topic.

>btw, Henry and I work at the place, although we've never met. It's
>interesting seeing the somewhat different approach the postgres
>developers must take for this to be successful.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu

------------------------------

End of hackers-digest V1 #380
*****************************