upvote
Signal quality... what is that even? The bugs may be valid, but they may also be obscure, irrelevant, low priority. A sibling thread mentioned that they had found CVE-level bugs in Postgres, and those require attention in some version of "immediately". But beyond that... not every bug needs fixing; that's a trap.
reply
"But beyond that... not every bug needs fixing; that's a trap"

this doesn't seem good attitude for critical software like database

reply
Not every part of a critical piece system is itself critical.

Seatback entertainment in aircraft are not critical. Aircraft are.

In Postgres, there are plenty low-priority, low-impact bugs. #16265, for instance, reports that the capitalization of a relation in an error message is confusing. The report got mostly ignored. And that seems not a great loss.

Dare I say, solving every bug does not make economic sense.

reply
"Seatback entertainment in aircraft are not critical."

Until it is. Swiss Air Flight 111 went down with 229 lives lost because of a new infotainment system whose electrical cables started sparkling.

Yes, not every part of a critical system is critical. Determining which is which is a complicated task, though, as parts interact. Not too long ago (and by this I mean within my lifetime), we were ignorant enough about our own bodies to think that our microbiota was almost irrelevant to our health and that bad teeth were mostly a cosmetic problem.

Back to IT, Heartbleed was caused by addition of a feature that looked as harmless as you could think of. But it wasn't.

Judging real critical-ness of bugs is hard. Yeah, capitalization of an error message is likely harmless, but I would treat, say, any buffer overflow as serious.

reply
I do tend to agree with this ( i write database internals and engines for a living _). Letting software accumulate even little bugs is not a good look. Yes prioritize but definitely don't leave the smaller things, they will just pile up and make next work even harder.
reply
Old bugs are sometimes undesirable to fix because other systems/users have come to rely on their behavior.
reply
That's a weird take. Do you have an example tibbar?
reply
Sure. This one already came up. [0]. In general, for a system like Postgres, many bugs affect only "extreme edge case" scenarios, but fixing them might create severe performance issues or require changing or removing other important features. So it's better to not fix them.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/c22286ad6268347c6...

reply
the optimal amount of fraud for a fintech is non-zero

why would the optimal amount of bugs be anything less for a database?

reply
Seems like a lot of these bugs have not affected end-users or tripped up maintainers. They could be trade-offs that helped get other features over the line even?

In which case maybe leaving them alone is practical?

I love fixing bugs, but your post triggered this thought so I thought I'd share.

reply