On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to push
this
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to push
this patch to
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about what the
situation will be
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about what the
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:17 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
patch by
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:17 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:43 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Tom originally stated (as I recall, no flames please) that we would wait
for 2 weeks for the hot standby stuff. It has now been four. That is
what I and I believe Robert Haas are talking about.
Thanks, it
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
As for when it *will* be committable --- Heikki is saying two weeks
if no new problems crop up, but given the rate at which new problems
have been found so far, what are the odds of that? We've seen this
Heikki,
Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago, but
the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are cropping
up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which has been a
difficult part of the patch all along, still needs more thinking.
Are
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:11 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Heikki,
Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago, but
the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are cropping
up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which has been a
difficult
Josh Berkus wrote:
Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago,
but the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are
cropping up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which
has been a difficult part of the patch all along, still needs more
On Sunday 25 January 2009 19:06:50 Tom Lane wrote:
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
I'm also feeling that we are
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
will obviously prefer to release
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work -
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
appropriate timeframe,
I already pointed out some pretty
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:51 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Updatable views is reverted.
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
Not at all. I think the deferral of that particular patch is
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about what the
situation
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 11:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
Even
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 17:47:52 Dave Page wrote:
The primary case that I'm objecting to is HS which you've
been saying will take 10 - 12 months to complete having by your own
admission not looked at the code or followed the discussion
particularly closely.
Is there another committer or
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 17:47:52 Dave Page wrote:
The primary case that I'm objecting to is HS which you've
been saying will take 10 - 12 months to complete having by your own
admission not looked at the code or
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Lastly, the last time a developer told me two weeks it was 3 months.
Unless we get a written development plan that describes specifically
what, when, why and how long I am severely suspect that Heikki or Simon
have a clue on an actual deliverable time line (no offense
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:46 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Lastly, the last time a developer told me two weeks it was 3 months.
Unless we get a written development plan that describes specifically
what, when, why and how long I am severely suspect that Heikki or
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
properly developed within the community process with
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Nobody has suggested bouncing HS; there is only a debate about how soon
it's likely to be appliable. Any company who imagined they had a
guarantee about it getting into 8.4 is simply
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 16:01 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
BTree-GIN has been ready for committer review for quite some time. It
has been mostly-ready for much longer: the only real code change since
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 16:01 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
prepare a release.
BTree-GIN has been ready for committer review for quite some time. It
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I think both of these deserve at least a glance by a committer before
bouncing them.
While we're at it, I think the Ramon Lawrence/Bryce Cutt patch to
Improve Performance of
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
I think both of these deserve at least a glance by a committer before
bouncing them.
While we're at it, I think the Ramon
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If we want to ensure that 8.5 development opens soon, what we have to
do is reject those two patches, revert updatable views, and finish up
the other stuff (which is all small and could likely be dealt with in
a week or two). That puts us
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
If we want to ensure that 8.5 development opens soon, what we have to
do is reject those two patches, revert updatable views, and finish up
the other stuff (which is all small and could likely be dealt with in
a week or two). That puts us in
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Any release with big
features in it will take longer, whether you wait a year, or not.
Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
will obviously prefer to release earlier without hot
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
While I
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later
work).
I've wasted much time in
Simon has put a lot of time into Hot Standby and has followed the
pseudo-defacto community process from design through what he believes to be
near-completion; he can't be sure of completion until someone reviews his
work.
I think this is a fair critique.
Yet, albeit with almost no review
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Any release with big
features in it will take longer, whether you wait a year, or not.
Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit fest.
Has that ever happened? :-)
I don't think its chance we get big
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Looking forward, if no one
wanted to review these patches in November,
I did, and many others were active in the discussion too.
and seemingly no one wants to review them now,
I do. Thank you for your appreciation :-(.
how can we expect this to change for 8.5?
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Still, I agree that if there's anything we should be putting our
effort into as a community right now, it's this feature. If we got
Hot Standby in the next release and everything else in the
CommitFest
got bumped, I think a lot of people would
Robert Haas wrote:
At a minimum, I think the following patches from the CommitFest wiki
should be returned with feedback or rejected:
1. SE-PostgreSQL. We handled this one badly, but there's not enough
time to fix it now. 8.5.
Unacceptable.
Please make it clear how many items should be
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit fest.
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
how can we expect this to change for 8.5? Can anyone point
out something Simon did wrong in this process?
Not really, except maybe started 6 months too late. Big patches simply
take a long time to mature.
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah... I'm not sure what to do about that, but as Tom pointed out,
it has the disadvantage that all of these massive changes are getting
put into the tree just before we start beta.
Well, it is less a problem than in previous
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's
Tom Lane wrote:
and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later
Robert Haas wrote:
I would, however, like to see us make a commitment to actually review
SE-PostgreSQL. There was some talk that we might not want to include
this feature in core at all, and if that is the case then I think it
is long past time to make that decision. Assuming that isn't the
54 matches
Mail list logo
