<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Revert on Tomas Vondra</title><link>https://vondra.me/tags/revert/</link><description>Recent content in Revert on Tomas Vondra</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>© Tomas Vondra</copyright><lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 12:00:00 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://vondra.me/tags/revert/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item xml:base="https://vondra.me/posts/are-we-reverting-patches-because-of-bugs-found-by-ai/"><title>Are we reverting patches because of bugs found by AI?</title><link>https://vondra.me/posts/are-we-reverting-patches-because-of-bugs-found-by-ai/</link><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 12:00:00 +0200</pubDate><guid>https://vondra.me/posts/are-we-reverting-patches-because-of-bugs-found-by-ai/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Over the past month, several major features got reverted from Postgres
19. At this point, even if everything else goes perfectly, Postgres 19
will be released about a &lt;a href="https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/915517c4-d0ee-49f9-bbeb-c683ef2b9d3f%40postgresql.org"&gt;month later than originally planned&lt;/a&gt;.
A couple recent blog posts seem to suggest the reverts happened due to
AI finding complex bugs in those patches, with fixes way too invasive
this late in the development cycle. I don&amp;rsquo;t think that narrative matches
reality, and I think it matters to correct that.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>