Commitfest 2018-07 is closed

All the remaining items have been moved to the next commitfest, in some cases with changed status. Thanks to all the authors, reviewers and committers. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstanhttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 WOA items

On 08/09/2018 06:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1644/ Add --include-table-data-where option to pg_dump, to export only a subset of table data I'm not really clear what we're waiting on the author for. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1635/ libpq

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 WOA items

On 08/09/2018 06:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: On 2018-Aug-09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1252/ Foreign Key Arrays Nothing since May Suggest Return with feedback. Please keep it around for my sake. OK. I spent some time looking at it today, and it's a bit

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 RFC items

Hello Andrew, https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/669/ pgbench - allow to store select results into variables Latest patch has not been reviewed Recommendation: change to "needs review" and move AFAICS the latest patch is a trivial rebase after some perl automatic indentation changes,

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 WOA items

On 2018-Aug-09, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1252/ Foreign Key Arrays > Nothing since May > Suggest Return with feedback. Please keep it around for my sake. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,

Commitfest 2018-07 WOA items

I don't propose to annotate every one of these. If they aren't mentioned below I intend to move them to the next CF without any change. cheers andrew https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/1644/ Add --include-table-data-where option to pg_dump, to export only a subset of table data I'm

Commitfest 2018-07 RFC items

As will be seen in the summary below, I think a good many of the RCF items in the commitfest probably aren't. More than half of them need more review, as I read the mailing list threads. I propose to move them all to the next CF, but in many cases after changing the to "needs review" or in

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Well, here we are at the end of July. here's the current state of Commitfest 2018-07: *Status summary: *Needs review <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/?status=1>: 83. Waiting on Author <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/?status=2>: 31. Ready for Comm

commitfest 2018-07

Well, here we are at the end of July. here's the current state of Commitfest 2018-07: *Status summary: *Needs review <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/?status=1>: 83. Waiting on Author <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/18/?status=2>: 31. Ready for Comm

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 is underway

>>> Does this test doc building? >> >> Good question. Thomas? > > Yes. You can't see the resulting HTML or anything... but it does fail > if you break the documentation build. Great! Thanks for the explanation. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English:

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 is underway

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> Patch authors are reminded of the very useful patch tester too at >>> . You should check regularly if your >>> patch is still applying, building, and

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 is underway

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Patch authors are reminded of the very useful patch tester too at >> . You should check regularly if your >> patch is still applying, building, and testing nicely. There are >> currently quite a significant

Re: Commitfest 2018-07 is underway

> Patch authors are reminded of the very useful patch tester too at > . You should check regularly if your > patch is still applying, building, and testing nicely. There are > currently quite a significant number of patches listed which don't > apply or don't

Commitfest 2018-07 is underway

Hi Commitfest 2018-07, the first of the release 12 development cycle, is underway. New patches will need to be submitted to the next commitfest, 2018-09. Patch authors are reminded of the very useful patch tester too at <http://commitfest.cputube.org/>. You should check reg

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Greetings, * Andrew Dunstan (andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Well, this went quiet. I'm happy to be CFM and assisted by Michael and > Ashutosh > > Are there any privileges required that I should see about obtaining? I've set you up with the cf admin privs (which Michael also has).

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 06/07/2018 09:01 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: On Jun 6, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:34:55AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-06-11 11:50:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> So, we have confirmation from the RTM that there will be a 2018-07. And >> there is visibly consensus that renaming 2018-09 to 2018-07 makes the >> most sense. Any objections

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Hi, On 2018-06-11 11:50:55 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:38:56AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Thus, if we don't want to have to risk doing surgery on the system (or > > guarantee we won't bounce any patches from the 07 CF, but that seems like > > the wrong thing

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:38:56AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Thus, if we don't want to have to risk doing surgery on the system (or > guarantee we won't bounce any patches from the 07 CF, but that seems like > the wrong thing to do), we should rename the existing 09 CF to 07, so all >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the >> supporters of having an extra CF. > > I don't mind helping out either. There are many patches

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:40:40PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I'll volunteer for CFM, which seems appropriate since I was one of the > supporters of having an extra CF. I don't mind helping out either. There are many patches to handle. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 06/06/2018 11:57 AM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: On Jun 5, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane > wrote: Michael Paquier mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> writes: Okay.  If we

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >>> two days my time (Thursday afternoon in Tokyo) if there are no >>>

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:20:57AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/5/18 09:12, Andres Freund wrote: >> I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to >> it. > > My concern is whether the commitfest app will handle that well. There > is no "move to previous commit

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Let's keep the tech side of this simple and just do the rename as > > suggested and then we can encourage committers to review the > > smaller/older patches by providing

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Let's keep the tech side of this simple and just do the rename as > suggested and then we can encourage committers to review the > smaller/older patches by providing information about the objective size > and age of them, which will

Re: commitfest 2018-07

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in >> two days my time (Thursday afternoon in Tokyo) if there are no >> objections, so as anybody has hopefully time to argue back. > > I think

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 6 June 2018 at 03:17, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-06-06 03:14:58 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >> On 6 June 2018 at 02:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> > I thought the idea was to clear out the underbrush of small, ready-to-go >> > patches. How old they are doesn't enter into that. >> >> I don't

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 6/5/18 09:12, Andres Freund wrote: > I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to > it. My concern is whether the commitfest app will handle that well. There is no "move to previous commit fest" button. So you'd have to do it in some evil way, possibly confusing the

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 2018-06-06 03:14:58 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On 6 June 2018 at 02:20, Tom Lane wrote: > > I thought the idea was to clear out the underbrush of small, ready-to-go > > patches. How old they are doesn't enter into that. > > I don't recall a 'fest where small ready to go patches getting >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 6 June 2018 at 02:20, Tom Lane wrote: > I thought the idea was to clear out the underbrush of small, ready-to-go > patches. How old they are doesn't enter into that. I don't recall a 'fest where small ready to go patches getting anything but priority. -- David Rowley

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Joe Conway writes: > > On 06/05/2018 10:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> I think we've not fully agreed on that. I'd argue we should manually > >> filter things into the next CF. And both small patches and older things > >> should qualify. >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 06/05/2018 10:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2018-06-05 10:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to it. Otherwise we'll not really focus on the glut of old things, but everyone just restarts working on

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Joe Conway writes: > On 06/05/2018 10:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I think we've not fully agreed on that. I'd argue we should manually >> filter things into the next CF. And both small patches and older things >> should qualify. > Would it work to rename 2018-09 to 2018-07 and then make a

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 06/05/2018 10:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-06-05 10:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to >>> it. Otherwise we'll not really focus on the glut of old things, but >>> everyone just restarts

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 2018-06-05 10:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to > > it. Otherwise we'll not really focus on the glut of old things, but > > everyone just restarts working on their own new thing. > > I thought the

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Andres Freund writes: > I'd rather create a new 2018-07, and just manually move old patches to > it. Otherwise we'll not really focus on the glut of old things, but > everyone just restarts working on their own new thing. I thought the idea was to clear out the underbrush of small, ready-to-go

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Michael Paquier writes: > Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in > two days my time (Thursday afternoon in Tokyo) if there are no > objections, so as anybody has hopefully time to argue back. I think we probably have to wait longer. It's not clear to me when the

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 2018-06-04 23:32:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry > >> versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches to be moved back >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Greetings, * Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry >

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry >>> versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches to be moved back

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:32:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1 for just renaming 2018-09 to 2018-07, if we can do that. We'll end > up postponing some entries back to -09, but that seems like less churn > than the other way. Okay. If we tend toward this direction, I propose to do this switch in

Re: commitfest 2018-07

Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry >> versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches to be moved back >> explicitly. > I would do that to reduce unnecessary

Re: commitfest 2018-07

David Rowley writes: > On 5 June 2018 at 11:16, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> Per decision from the developer meeting, there will be a commitfest >> 2018-07 (unless there are concerns from the RMT). > In absence of concerns from the RMT, does this mean v12 will be a 5

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On 5 June 2018 at 11:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Per decision from the developer meeting, there will be a commitfest > 2018-07 (unless there are concerns from the RMT). In absence of concerns from the RMT, does this mean v12 will be a 5 'fest cycle? -- David Rowley

Re: commitfest 2018-07

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:16:33PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Per decision from the developer meeting, there will be a commitfest > 2018-07 (unless there are concerns from the RMT). Thanks for raising the thread. > Could we set up the commitfest app appropriately? Sure. I h

commitfest 2018-07

Per decision from the developer meeting, there will be a commitfest 2018-07 (unless there are concerns from the RMT). Could we set up the commitfest app appropriately? There were some discussions about renaming the existing 2018-09 entry versus inserting a new one at -07 and requiring patches