I’ll ignore the baits :D

We would have done the work and contributed it back to Oracle, though..

Seems to me it’s more likely that InnoDB will more tightly integrated now though eh?! :)

Thanks also for your thoughts. I appreciate them.

Though the first paragraphs are positive, the last 4 bullet points are extremely negative. Since you don’t seem to think so, I will point it out to you:

* Why has this not been public? You put four years of work into this without any community input? What a shame.

The positive way to say this is “I wish this would have been public sooner, so the community could have had more input.” Your questions are either passive-aggressive because they’re rhetorical, or would make Peter G. and Mark L. completely defensive as they demand an answer. The “What a shame” is a clear scold, not positive at all.

* Mark says “There’s no stats for InnoDB yet, though I can’t see that lasting for long.” I can. Why don’t you see InnoDB being slow to add support for it?

This bullet is condescending. A positive way to say that would be “InnoDB has been slow to add support for many things, I think it’s likely that they’ll be slow to add stats. Is something in the works with InnoDB already?”

* What version is this intended for? 6.x is kind of vague after four years of work.

This would have been completely neutral had it not been for the “after four years of work.” That makes it condescending and snarky. Just “What version is this intended for? 6.x is kind of vague.” would suffice, without the snarkiness.

* Information by itself is no use unless you can act on it. I predict that a lot of neglected bug reports will get revisited if this information can be brought to bear on it. I also predict that if implemented fully, this will show people where the hot spots in their server are; and yet they’ll be unable to fix them.

While I’m sure your claims are based in your experiences, this bullet point has no evidence to back it up. In my opinion, “a lot of neglected bug reports will get revisited” is a GOOD thing — Giuseppe begged and pleaded folks to add “me toos” to bugs so MySQL developers could get prioritization FROM THE COMMUNITY for bugs in 5.1, which didn’t happen fast or good enough.

Perhaps you meant it as a good thing; in the context of the next sentence you seem to be saying that the neglected bug reports will stay neglected, which is most likely untrue, as they will be revisited and with more facts, details, and affected customers (paying and non-paying!), MySQL will be able to better fix the bugs.

The last sentence of the bullet points is clearly negative, and does not give any facts. Something that’s more factual: “I’m glad to see this tool come out, we do a lot of this work at Percona and have developed similar tools. Unfortunately we’ve found that we can debug the problem but in many cases we can’t fix it.”

So, yes, it’s negative. It’s criticism that’s not constructive — it’s *destructive* criticism. Perhaps that’s not the way it’s intended, but that’s the way it comes out. As a public face to the world for Percona, you might want to read things more carefully if you really don’t think this post is negative.

Percona is an amazing company, and I fully believe that the points you make under the negativity are valid. However, to say that this post is not negative is missing a big communication rift — it seems Percona doesn’t realize that posts like this piss MySQL employees off (like Jan Kneschke above).

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. I agree with Baron that this is a promising tool and I’d like to see more. I haven’t looked into it so I can’t give any criticism, but if/when I do the criticism will be *constructive*.