On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >>> It would probably be prudent to concentrate on getting the core >>> infrastructure committed first. That way, we at least know that if >>> this doesn't get into 9.2, we can work on getting it into 9.3 knowing >>> that once committed, people won't have to wait over a year at the very > >> I don't see why we can't commit the whole thing. This is way more ready >> for prime-time than checksums. > > We'll get to it in due time. In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot > of stuff in this commitfest. And I don't follow the logic that says > that because Simon is trying to push through a not-ready-for-commit > patch we should drop our standards for other patches.
I don't follow that logic either, but I also feel like this CommitFest is dragging on and on. Unless you -- or someone -- are prepared to devote a lot more time to this, "due time" is not going to arrive any time in the forseeable future. We're currently making progress at a rate of maybe 4 patches a week, at which rate we're going to finish this CommitFest in May. And that might be generous, because we've been disproportionately knocking off the easy ones. Do we have any kind of a plan for, I don't know, bringing this to closure on some reasonable time frame? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers