On 01/03/2018 09:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
There's already https://postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general
which seems to work pretty well. Here's the list of completed items:
https://postgresql.uservoice.com/forums/21853-general?status_id=124172
Well that's in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Heck we could go a step further and actually allow (authenticated) voting on
> various features. This would provide the community the ability to more
> easily interact with -hackers on various features that would be desirable.
There's already https://postgresql.uservoice.
On 1/3/18 11:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This text was added by [1] as saying:
> > This list contains '''some known PostgreSQL bugs and feature
> > requests''' and we hope it contains all such
> (before this, it said "all known Pg bugs" which seemed too optimistic,
> so the correction w
On 01/03/2018 07:49 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
O.k. what does it tell us though? Is it a resource issue? Is it a
barrier of entry issue?
Lack of ownership/ruthlessness. While I can edit it to remove items
that don't seem desirable (or comprehensible, or whatever) I'm not
likely to do so, unless
I think deleting the TODO list is a bad idea -- it contains very useful
pointers to previous discussion on hard topics.
Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we
> > don't think that, or I don'
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by
> > people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get
> > moved to one of two section
On 01/03/2018 03:50 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Patrick Krecker wrote:
>> As a person looking to become a postgres contributor, perhaps I can
>> offer some perspective on this. I think there is value in providing
>> *some* starting point for new contributors in the form o
On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Patrick Krecker wrote:
> As a person looking to become a postgres contributor, perhaps I can
> offer some perspective on this. I think there is value in providing
> *some* starting point for new contributors in the form of concrete
> problems to solve. The value I hope
Greetings,
* Patrick Krecker (pkrec...@gmail.com) wrote:
> As a person looking to become a postgres contributor, perhaps I can
> offer some perspective on this. I think there is value in providing
> *some* starting point for new contributors in the form of concrete
> problems to solve. The value I
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's no
On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort
into i
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The todo entry even talks about why it's difficult to do and what the
> > expected way to go about doing it is (that is, connect to each database
> > that has objects in the tablespace
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by
> people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get
> moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by core
> that have me
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The todo entry even talks about why it's difficult to do and what the
> expected way to go about doing it is (that is, connect to each database
> that has objects in the tablespace and query it to find out what's in
> the tablespace). Craig'
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
>> worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort
>> into it ...
>
> If somebody was going to r
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
> worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort
> into it ...
If somebody was going to resolve to put some effort into maintaining
it to a high standard
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Also, let's delete the TODO list. People keep using it as a source of
> > project ideas, and that's bad.
>
> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
> worth keeping it around. But I'd rather
Tom, Robert, all,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Also, let's delete the TODO list. People keep using it as a source of
> > project ideas, and that's bad.
>
> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
> worth keeping it around. But I'd
Robert Haas writes:
> Also, let's delete the TODO list. People keep using it as a source of
> project ideas, and that's bad.
If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort
into it ...
20 matches
Mail list logo
