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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to