Re: Support for QNX6, POSIX IPC and PTHREAD-style locking

On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:39:42PM -0600, Igor Kovalenko wrote:
>
> > Exceptions are
> > always made, but a new feature has never qualified for such an exception.
> >
> > "There will always be another release."
>
> Sure. I think I made it clear enough why I want it in 7.2. I also took away
> the most interesting part of patch since there were some valid logical
> objections against including it as is. I thought that would clear the way,
> but now I am presented with unbeatable 'this is untested' reason. Who do you
> think would be testing it if it was included in 7.3 or 8.0 for that matter?
> Not you, I suspect. That would be same old me probably and why do you think
> few weeks of testing by me and my fellows then will be somehow better than
> same testing we've done now?

Because if it _does_ break other peoples builds, it'll happen in an
unstable devlopment tree, which constitutes testing, and everyone just
says 'hmm, fix that'. If it gets in now, there's a chance it'll break
someone's build _no matter how much you've tested it_. If that happens
in a _stable release_, now we have a problem. PostgreSQL has a strong
track record of no 'brown paper bag' bugs in stable releases (well,
almost none). You seldom see a minor version number over 3 or 4, for
that reason. Logically 'proving' that your patch _couldn't possibly_
cause any problems has no impact on the matter: there are stranger build
environments out there than you've dreamed of, and someone has ported
PostgreSQL to most of them.

At this point, I'd suggest you yield gracefully: the core developers
don't want it right now, but have read your patch and given you valuable
feedback, to improve you submission for 7.3 (in about two weeks).

Ross
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D.                                 reedstrm@rice.edu
Executive Director                                  phone: 713-348-6166
Gulf Coast Consortium for Bioinformatics              fax: 713-348-6182
Rice University MS-39
Houston, TX 77005