[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-06-07 Thread Noah Misch 
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:14:17AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Noah Misch  wrote:
> 
> > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.
> 
> I should be able to complete review and testing by Friday.  If there
> are problems I might not take action until Monday; otherwise I
> should be able to do so on Friday.

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.  This PostgreSQL 10 open item is again 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 2017-06-08 08:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-31 Thread Kevin Grittner 
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Noah Misch  wrote:

> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.

I should be able to complete review and testing by Friday.  If there
are problems I might not take action until Monday; otherwise I
should be able to do so on Friday.

--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-31 Thread Noah Misch 
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:34:33AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.  This PostgreSQL 10 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
2017-06-01 07:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
ownership without further notice.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-30 Thread Robert Haas 
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Noah Misch  wrote:
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

I spoke with Kevin about this at PGCon and asked him to have a look at
it.  He agreed to do so, but did not specify a time frame, which seems
important.

-- 
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-29 Thread Noah Misch 
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-11 Thread Robert Haas 
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Noah Misch  wrote:
> This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

Kevin has not posted to this mailing list since May 3rd.  I don't know
whether he's gone on vacation or been without email access for some
other reason, but I think we'd better assume that he's not likely to
respond to emails demanding immediate action regardless of how many of
them we send.

I'm not prepared to write a patch for this issue, but it seems like
Thomas is on top of that.  If nobody else steps up to the plate I
guess I'm willing to take responsibility for reviewing and committing
that patch once it's in final form, but at this point I don't think
it's going to be possible to get that done before Monday's planned
wrap.

In formal terms, if Kevin forfeits ownership of this item and nobody
else volunteers to adopt it, put me down as owner with a next-update
date of Friday, May 19th, the day after beta1 is expected to ship.

-- 
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-11 Thread Noah Misch 
On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 06:54:37PM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:10:52AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> > 
> > > It seems pretty clear to me that this is busted.
> > 
> > I don't think you actually tested anything that is dependent on any
> > of my patches there.
> > 
> > > Adding this as an open item.  Kevin?
> > 
> > It will take some time to establish what legacy behavior is and how
> > the new transition tables are impacted.  My first reaction is that a
> > trigger on the parent should fire for any related action on a child
> > (unless maybe the trigger is defined with an ONLY keyword???) using
> > the TupleDesc of the parent.  Note that the SQL spec mandates that
> > even in a AFTER EACH ROW trigger the transition tables must
> > represent all rows affected by the STATEMENT.  I think that this
> > should be independent of triggers fired at the row level.  I think
> > the rules should be similar for updateable views.
> > 
> > This will take some time to investigate, discuss and produce a
> > patch.  I think best case is Friday.
> 
> [Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]
> 
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Kevin,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)

2017-05-06 Thread Noah Misch 
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:10:52AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> 
> > It seems pretty clear to me that this is busted.
> 
> I don't think you actually tested anything that is dependent on any
> of my patches there.
> 
> > Adding this as an open item.  Kevin?
> 
> It will take some time to establish what legacy behavior is and how
> the new transition tables are impacted.  My first reaction is that a
> trigger on the parent should fire for any related action on a child
> (unless maybe the trigger is defined with an ONLY keyword???) using
> the TupleDesc of the parent.  Note that the SQL spec mandates that
> even in a AFTER EACH ROW trigger the transition tables must
> represent all rows affected by the STATEMENT.  I think that this
> should be independent of triggers fired at the row level.  I think
> the rules should be similar for updateable views.
> 
> This will take some time to investigate, discuss and produce a
> patch.  I think best case is Friday.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Kevin,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers