On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:32:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > >> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past > >> due > >> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open > >> item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by > >> 2016-06-04 15:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team > >> ownership without further notice. > >> [1] > >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.ga447...@tornado.leadboat.com > > > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item now needs a permanent owner. I want > > PostgreSQL > > to have this planner functionality, but I cannot both give it the attention > > it > > needs and meet commitments predating this open item. Would any other > > committer like to take ownership? If this role interests you, please read > > this thread and the policy linked above, then send an initial status update > > bearing a date for your subsequent status update. If the item does not > > have a > > permanent owner by 2016-06-07 22:00 UTC, I will resolve the item by > > reverting > > commits 68d704e and 137805f. > > The state of play here seems to be that Tomas is willing to have a go at > rewriting the patch per my suggestions, but Simon has not shown any > indications of responding in a timely fashion; and time is now of the > essence. > > I am willing to take ownership of this item; but if I do, I will start > by reverting the aforementioned commits and their followups. I do not > think that very much of what's there now will survive without significant > changes, and to my taste it will be easier to review a rewritten patch > de novo. If Tomas is able to produce a rewritten patch within a week > (by 6/14), I will undertake to review it with an eye to committing by > the end of next week. If we are unable to produce something satisfactory > before beta2, the feature needs to be postponed into the next devel cycle.
Through the lens of open item procedure, I see no defects in your offer of ownership. I have updated the open items sheet to reflect you being the new owner. Thanks. My personal opinion is that the community should not undertake a "rewrite" of a nontrivial feature after freeze. The fact that a progenitor was present in the tree at freeze doesn't make the rewrite much less risky than a brand new feature. So, I suggest that you instead revert the patches and review that rewrite for next CommitFest. Even so, I am okay with your current plan. Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
