[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) writes:
>> We can issue a provisional date. We could also say "at least 6 months
>> after release date of 8.3". I'm sure there's other options too.
> I'm going to suggest 4 months after 8.3. 8.3 was supposed to be a *short*
> release so that we could move our calendar around. HOT and some of the
> other unexpected massive patches prevented that. Again, we have enough in
> the "deferred for 8.4" queue that if we finished up only that it would
> qualify as a release.
> So my thought is, shoot for a short release so that we can get away from
> summer consolidations and December releases, and extend the cycle if
> someone dumps another 50,000 lines of attractive patches on us.
> In fact, I could see doing a "no-catalog-changes, no major patches we don't
> already know about, 6-month release". It would reset our cycle and get
> PL/proxy, DSM, clustered indexes, etc. out the door. It could mean
> turning away patches which look attractive, though, so the whole community
> has to be into this.
There are good things about that idea.
There would also be good things about picking a somewhat *longer*
cycle in that we already just had a cycle where the "feature freeze"
period was supposedly a short one, which precluded implementing
anything requiring more planning.
- It seems at least somewhat unfair to burden the 8.4 cycle with the
"sins" of the 8.3 cycle.
- There is the risk that even with the restriction, 8.4 might still
not be a short cycle, which would make the attempt futile.
- And would we then say "hey, we need for 8.5 to have a shortened
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
Space is big. Really big. You won't believe how vastly
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down
the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen....
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not