Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Gavin Flower
 wrote:
> On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
>> Committed: 30.
>> Moved to next CF: 42.
>> Rejected: 9.
>> Returned with Feedback: 22.
>> Total: 103.
>> Regards,
>
>
> You didn't say how may regards...

One.

> [More seriously]
> Many thanks to you, and the other Postgres developers, for all your hard
> work & dedication, much appreciated!

Thanks. I am moving back to more normal hacking activity, and there is
much to be done. Being a CFM is highly energy-draining activity.
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[David Fetter]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:45:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
> >  wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
> >>  wrote:
> >>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
> >>> CF with the same status.
> >>
> >> After a first pass, Numbers are getting down,  I am just too tired to 
> >> continue:
> >> Needs review: 13.
> >> Waiting on Author: 15.
> >> Ready for Committer: 5
> >>
> >> Two additional patches have been marked as ready for committer:
> >> 1) Bug fix for pg_dump --jobs when password is passed a a parameter in
> >> a connection string:
> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/405/
> >> 2) Default roles, in Stephen's plate:
> >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/49/
> >
> > I had a look at all the remaining entries and treated each one of
> > them, patches marked as ready for committer have been moved to next CF
> > with the same status. There are currently 3 remaining entries in the
> > CF app where it would be cool authors and/or reviewers give a status
> > of the situation. Once this is addressed the CF of 2015-11 will be
> > closed.
> >
> > Note particularly to authors: if your patch has been returned with
> > feedback, but you are still working on it, please make sure that it is
> > moved to next CF soon. Or, if your patch has been moved to next CF,
> > *but* you are not working on it, it would be nice to mark it as
> > returned with feedback in 2016-01.
> 
> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> Committed: 30.
> Moved to next CF: 42.
> Rejected: 9.
> Returned with Feedback: 22.
> Total: 103.
> Regards,

Thanks very much for doing the thankless!

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter  http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter  XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Gavin Flower]

On 25/12/15 01:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
[...]

And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Regards,


You didn't say how may regards...


[More seriously]
Many thanks to you, and the other Postgres developers, for all your hard 
work & dedication, much appreciated!




Cheers,
Gavin


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Tomas Vondra]

On 12/24/2015 04:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Michael Paquier  writes:

And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.


Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!


+1

--
Tomas Vondra  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Alexander Korotkov]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:

> Michael Paquier  writes:
> > And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> > Committed: 30.
> > Moved to next CF: 42.
> > Rejected: 9.
> > Returned with Feedback: 22.
> > Total: 103.
>
> Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!
>

​+1
​Michael, thank you for the great job.


--
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Michael Paquier
 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
>>  wrote:
>>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>>> CF with the same status.
>>
>> After a first pass, Numbers are getting down,  I am just too tired to 
>> continue:
>> Needs review: 13.
>> Waiting on Author: 15.
>> Ready for Committer: 5
>>
>> Two additional patches have been marked as ready for committer:
>> 1) Bug fix for pg_dump --jobs when password is passed a a parameter in
>> a connection string:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/405/
>> 2) Default roles, in Stephen's plate:
>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/49/
>
> I had a look at all the remaining entries and treated each one of
> them, patches marked as ready for committer have been moved to next CF
> with the same status. There are currently 3 remaining entries in the
> CF app where it would be cool authors and/or reviewers give a status
> of the situation. Once this is addressed the CF of 2015-11 will be
> closed.
>
> Note particularly to authors: if your patch has been returned with
> feedback, but you are still working on it, please make sure that it is
> moved to next CF soon. Or, if your patch has been moved to next CF,
> *but* you are not working on it, it would be nice to mark it as
> returned with feedback in 2016-01.

And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
Committed: 30.
Moved to next CF: 42.
Rejected: 9.
Returned with Feedback: 22.
Total: 103.
Regards,
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Tom Lane]

Michael Paquier  writes:
> And the CF is no closed. Here is the final score:
> Committed: 30.
> Moved to next CF: 42.
> Rejected: 9.
> Returned with Feedback: 22.
> Total: 103.

Many thanks to Michael for doing the CF management work this time!

regards, tom lane


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier
 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
>  wrote:
>> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
>> CF with the same status.
>
> After a first pass, Numbers are getting down,  I am just too tired to 
> continue:
> Needs review: 13.
> Waiting on Author: 15.
> Ready for Committer: 5
>
> Two additional patches have been marked as ready for committer:
> 1) Bug fix for pg_dump --jobs when password is passed a a parameter in
> a connection string:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/405/
> 2) Default roles, in Stephen's plate:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/49/

I had a look at all the remaining entries and treated each one of
them, patches marked as ready for committer have been moved to next CF
with the same status. There are currently 3 remaining entries in the
CF app where it would be cool authors and/or reviewers give a status
of the situation. Once this is addressed the CF of 2015-11 will be
closed.

Note particularly to authors: if your patch has been returned with
feedback, but you are still working on it, please make sure that it is
moved to next CF soon. Or, if your patch has been moved to next CF,
*but* you are not working on it, it would be nice to mark it as
returned with feedback in 2016-01.
Thanks.
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Michael Paquier
 wrote:
> OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
> CF with the same status.

After a first pass, Numbers are getting down,  I am just too tired to continue:
Needs review: 13.
Waiting on Author: 15.
Ready for Committer: 5

Two additional patches have been marked as ready for committer:
1) Bug fix for pg_dump --jobs when password is passed a a parameter in
a connection string:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/405/
2) Default roles, in Stephen's plate:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/49/
Regards,
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Tom Lane]

Michael Paquier  writes:
> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.

Those are:

: SQL function to report log message

AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
It's questionable whether we need such a feature at all, and it's even
more questionable whether this particular instantiation of the feature
is well-designed.  I'm not going to opine as to whether it should get
marked "returned with feedback" or "rejected", but I doubt it's going
to get committed as-is.

: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates

Robert has been committer for all the predecessor patches, so I assume
this one will be his.

: Speedup timestamp/time/date output functions

I'd look into this if Andres hadn't already claimed it ...

: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records

Heikki and Andres have already reviewed this, so I assume one or the
other of them will be committer.

regards, tom lane


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

[HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

Hi all,

As of today, at the moment I am writing this message, here is the
commit fest app status:
Needs review: 20.
Waiting on Author: 24.
Ready for Committer: 4.
Committed: 29.
Moved to next CF: 11.
Rejected: 8.
Returned with Feedback: 7.
Total: 103.

This means in short that 48 out of 103 patches still need to be
treated by the end of this commit fest, which was actually 3 weeks
ago. As the so-said CFM, perhaps I slacked a bit too much here, but to
be honest at this rhythm we are not going to make it by the end of the
month, so I am going to look at the 48 remaining patches and see if
each one can be moved to the next commit fest or returned with
feedback. I would suspect as well that the status of some of those
patches has not been updated for a while.

It would be cool to get a largely cleaned up CF app by Christmas, or
err... 3 days. This is going to be a vacation period and a lot of
people are not going to be here.

To patch authors: please be careful that the status of your patch is
correctly updated. And feel free to scream injustice regarding your
patch if you think the CFM was unfair. I'll update the related threads
regarding the status of the patch, so feel free to complain if needed
on the related thread.
To reviewers: thanks for the reviews done!
To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.

Regards,
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status for 2015-11

[Michael Paquier]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> Michael Paquier  writes:
>> To committers: there are 4 patches waiting for input.
>
> Those are:
>
> : SQL function to report log message
>
> AFAICT, there is no committer who likes this idea enough to commit it.
> It's questionable whether we need such a feature at all, and it's even
> more questionable whether this particular instantiation of the feature
> is well-designed.  I'm not going to opine as to whether it should get
> marked "returned with feedback" or "rejected", but I doubt it's going
> to get committed as-is.

Thanks, that's hard to follow all those threads. Let's cut the apple
in half and mark it as returned with feedback then.

> : Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates
>
> Robert has been committer for all the predecessor patches, so I assume
> this one will be his.
>
> : Speedup timestamp/time/date output functions
>
> I'd look into this if Andres hadn't already claimed it ...
>
> : Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records
>
> Heikki and Andres have already reviewed this, so I assume one or the
> other of them will be committer.

OK, if those don't get addressed soon, they will be moved to the next
CF with the same status.
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Tomas Vondra]

On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
 Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for 
 Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
 4. Total: 114.
 
 We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
 would be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so
 far.

I'm wondering what is the best way to select a patch to review. I mean,
there are many patches with needs review (and often no reviewer) just
one or two comments, but when I checked the email archives there's often
a lot people discussing it.

Do we have a list of patches that didn't get a proper review yet / badly
need another one?

What about improving the commitfest page by displaying a number of
related e-mail messages / number of people involved? Shouldn't be
difficult to get this from the mail archives ...

regards
Tomas


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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Magnus Hagander]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Tomas Vondra t...@fuzzy.cz wrote:

 On 1.3.2014 18:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
  Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
  Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected:
  4. Total: 114.
 
  We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
  would be similar to the previous few commit fests. So decent job so
  far.

 I'm wondering what is the best way to select a patch to review. I mean,
 there are many patches with needs review (and often no reviewer) just
 one or two comments, but when I checked the email archives there's often
 a lot people discussing it.

 Do we have a list of patches that didn't get a proper review yet / badly
 need another one?

 What about improving the commitfest page by displaying a number of
 related e-mail messages / number of people involved? Shouldn't be
 difficult to get this from the mail archives ...


I have some code for that part, that needs a coupe of rounds of final
hacking and polish. I've had many targets for it, but right now the target
is to be done before pgcon, so we can put it in play for the next set of
commitfests. It's not going to happen for *this* one, and we don't want to
distrupt the flow even more by making big changes to the tooling in the
middle of it.

That said, there is definitely a need :)

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

[HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Peter Eisentraut]

Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
Total: 114.

We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
be similar to the previous few commit fests.  So decent job so far.

Which brings us to important news.  The core team has agreed on a
release timeline:

- Mar 15 end commit fest
- Apr 15 feature freeze
- May 15 beta

This is similar to the last few years, so it shouldn't come as a shock
to anyone.

Let's use the remaining two weeks to give all patches in the commit fest
fair consideration and a decent review.  The time to reject or postpone
patches will inevitably come in the time between the end of the commit
fest and feature freeze.  Note that it is everyone's individual
responsibility to move their favorite patch forward.


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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Josh Berkus]

On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
 Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
 Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
 Total: 114.
 
 We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
 be similar to the previous few commit fests.  So decent job so far.

So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
big/difficult patches left?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Vik Fearing]

On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
 On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
 Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
 Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
 Total: 114.

 We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
 be similar to the previous few commit fests.  So decent job so far.
 So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
 big/difficult patches left?

For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE. 

-- 
Vik



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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Michael Paquier]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com wrote:
 On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
 On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
 Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
 Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
 Total: 114.

 We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which would
 be similar to the previous few commit fests.  So decent job so far.
 So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
 big/difficult patches left?

 For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE.
The patch by Peter to improve test coverage for client programs. This
is helpful for QE/QA teams evaluating Postgres, and it could be
extended for other things like replication test suite as well as far
as I understood.
Regards,
-- 
Michael


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

Re: [HACKERS] commit fest status and release timeline

[Fabrízio de Royes Mello]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Vik Fearing vik.fear...@dalibo.com
wrote:
  On 03/01/2014 07:50 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
  On 03/01/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
  Status Summary. Needs Review: 36, Waiting on Author: 7, Ready for
  Committer: 16, Committed: 43, Returned with Feedback: 8, Rejected: 4.
  Total: 114.
 
  We're still on track to achieve about 50% committed patches, which
would
  be similar to the previous few commit fests.  So decent job so far.
  So, other than Hstore2/JSONB and Logical Changesets, what are the
  big/difficult patches left?
 
  For me, I'd really like to see the reduced locks on ALTER TABLE.
 The patch by Peter to improve test coverage for client programs. This
 is helpful for QE/QA teams evaluating Postgres, and it could be
 extended for other things like replication test suite as well as far
 as I understood.


+1

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
 Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
 Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
 Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Decibel!]

On Apr 11, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.



OK, todo updated, but what about the Maintaining cluster order on
insert idea?
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches


The last item I see in the thread is some performance tests that
make it look not worthwhile.  There's no discussion needed, unless
someone refutes that test or improves the code.



What about Heikki's question to you about insert variations in your  
test in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-07/ 
msg00123.php


Even looking at Heikki's test results I'm still questioning the  
validity of the test itself. I don't see any notable difference in  
performance in the SELECTs in Heikki's two tests, which makes me  
think that the data was being cached somewhere. If my math is  
correct, this test should be generating a table that's about 400MB,  
so unless you were running this on a 486 or something, it's going to  
be cached. I wouldn't expect this test to buy *anything* in the case  
of all the data being cached. In fact, it's not going to help at all  
if the pages we need to pull for the partial SELECTs are in memory,  
which means that for this test to me useful you either need a very  
large dataset, or you have to do something to flush the cache before  
the SELECT test. If even 50% of the table fits in memory, you could  
still very possibly find all the pages you needed already in memory,  
which spoils things.


Another issue is I think we need to consider the case of the  
usefulness of clustering (unless everyone agrees that it's a very  
useful tool that we need), and then consider the performance impact  
of this patch on inserts and ways to reduce that.


Towards the former, I've run some tests on some non-spectacular  
hardware. I created a table similar to Tom's and populated it via:


create table test (i int, d text);
insert into test SELECT 100*random(), repeat('x',350) FROM  
generate_series(1,100);

create index test_i on test(i);

I then ran test.sh
bin/pg_ctl -D data stop
clearmem 625
bin/pg_ctl -D data start
sleep 15
bin/psql -f test.sql

test.sql:
set enable_bitmapscan To off;
explain analyze select * from test where i between 2000 and 3000;
explain analyze select * from test;

clearmem is something that just allocates a bunch of memory to clear  
the cache. Unfortunately I wasn't able to completely clear the cache,  
but it was enough to show the benefit of clustering.


I ran that script several times with the table not clustered; the  
results were in the 18-20 second range for the between query. For  
grins I also tried with bitmapscan on, but results were inconclusive.  
I then clustered the table and re-ran the test; response times were  
sub-second. Granted, this is on pedestrian hardware, so a good SAN  
might not show as big a difference. I can try testing this at work if  
there's desire.


So clustering certainly offers a benefit. Is there some way we can  
improve the patch to reduce the impact to INSERT?

--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Tom Lane]

What's left on Bruce's patch queue page is:

* Finishing out Heikki's patch to allow runtime determination of the
need to recheck an index condition.  What's committed so far doesn't
yet have any actual use :-(.  Although I intend to keep working on
that, it's clearly new development and hence not commit-fest material.

* Design discussions about dead space map, free space map, etc.
I think that we have pretty much converged on a consensus that the
way to store these maps is to add separate subsidiary file(s) for
each relation (forks, for lack of a better name).  And that really
seems to be the only thing we need to decide now --- there's not much
else to talk about until we have some prototype code to experiment
with.

* That thread about real procedures.  I'm not seeing that we need
any further discussion now about that, either.  The consensus in the
thread seemed to be that having a PL that could execute outside
transactions would be good, but nobody was excited about much else
that was suggested.

In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.

regards, tom lane

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Bruce Momjian]

Tom Lane wrote:
 What's left on Bruce's patch queue page is:
 
 * Finishing out Heikki's patch to allow runtime determination of the
 need to recheck an index condition.  What's committed so far doesn't
 yet have any actual use :-(.  Although I intend to keep working on
 that, it's clearly new development and hence not commit-fest material.
 
 * Design discussions about dead space map, free space map, etc.
 I think that we have pretty much converged on a consensus that the
 way to store these maps is to add separate subsidiary file(s) for
 each relation (forks, for lack of a better name).  And that really
 seems to be the only thing we need to decide now --- there's not much
 else to talk about until we have some prototype code to experiment
 with.
 
 * That thread about real procedures.  I'm not seeing that we need
 any further discussion now about that, either.  The consensus in the
 thread seemed to be that having a PL that could execute outside
 transactions would be good, but nobody was excited about much else
 that was suggested.
 
 In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.

OK, todo updated, but what about the Maintaining cluster order on
insert idea?

http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Tom Lane]

Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Tom Lane wrote:
 In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.

 OK, todo updated, but what about the Maintaining cluster order on
 insert idea?
   http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

The last item I see in the thread is some performance tests that
make it look not worthwhile.  There's no discussion needed, unless
someone refutes that test or improves the code.

regards, tom lane

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Bruce Momjian]

Tom Lane wrote:
 Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Tom Lane wrote:
  In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.
 
  OK, todo updated, but what about the Maintaining cluster order on
  insert idea?
  http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
 
 The last item I see in the thread is some performance tests that
 make it look not worthwhile.  There's no discussion needed, unless
 someone refutes that test or improves the code.

OK, so we delete it --- fine.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Chris Browne]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
 In short, I think it's time to declare our first commit fest done.

Congratulations!  

As a pure observer in the matter, it has clearly been a somewhat
painful process, which must be tempered by the consideration that what
was being reviewed was pretty much a year's worth of work.  I think
there's reason to hope that later iterations should be a bit easier
from that perspective alone.  And hopefully the learning curve means
that things have been learned to ease future pain :-).

Thanks all that have been working on it!
-- 
let name=cbbrowne and tld=linuxdatabases.info in String.concat @ 
[name;tld];;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/spiritual.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #130.  All members of my Legions of Terror
will  have professionally  tailored  uniforms. If  the  hero knocks  a
soldier unconscious and steals the uniform, the poor fit will give him
away. http://www.eviloverlord.com/

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Gregory Stark]

Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Well, it's the end of March, and I'm already starting to feel like we've
 been commit-festing forever :-(.  At this point I see only one remaining
 patch that seems likely to go in without any further discussion --- that's
 Pavel's plpgsql EXECUTE USING thing.  

A huge *thank you* for all your efforts. I know it's not the fun part of
your work.

 However, we've got boatloads of stuff that needs discussion and
 consensus-achievement. Please take a look at the queue
 http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

Alvaro tried to dump this list into:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:March

 and comment where you can.  Remember that substantive comments or
 reviews should go to the mailing lists --- you can add annotations to
 that page if you want, but they'll be ephemeral.

And the patch authors are unlikely to see them unless they're also doing
reviews.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL 
training!

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Tom Lane]

Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 However, we've got boatloads of stuff that needs discussion and
 consensus-achievement. Please take a look at the queue
 http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches

 Alvaro tried to dump this list into:
 http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:March

Last I looked, Alvaro had only listed live patches (things that seemed
to have some chance of getting committed in this fest).  That was fine
at the time, but now we need to expand our scope and consider the
threads that are discussing design decisions for future patches.
We can't close commit-fest till we've given some guidance on those.

regards, tom lane

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

[HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Tom Lane]

Well, it's the end of March, and I'm already starting to feel like we've
been commit-festing forever :-(.  At this point I see only one remaining
patch that seems likely to go in without any further discussion --- that's
Pavel's plpgsql EXECUTE USING thing.  However, we've got boatloads of
stuff that needs discussion and consensus-achievement.  Please take a
look at the queue
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
and comment where you can.  Remember that substantive comments or
reviews should go to the mailing lists --- you can add annotations to
that page if you want, but they'll be ephemeral.

regards, tom lane

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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Simon Riggs]

On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
 FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails.  We now have 787 emails
 left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
 or just delete them.

Just finished reviewing the remaining items on the queue that I can
comment on.

My personal todo list from that is
* Refine doc patch for Incomplete docs for restore_command...
* pg_stop_backup patch for Minor changes for Recovery...
* Complete testing of pl/tcl, pl/python etc for Truncate Triggers
* new version of COPY bulk insert patch (v3 in progress)

Please nudge me if you think there's anything else. 

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com 

  PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk


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

Re: [HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Bruce Momjian]

Simon Riggs wrote:
 On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 17:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
  FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails.  We now have 787 emails
  left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
  or just delete them.
 
 Just finished reviewing the remaining items on the queue that I can
 comment on.
 
 My personal todo list from that is
 * Refine doc patch for Incomplete docs for restore_command...
 * pg_stop_backup patch for Minor changes for Recovery...
 * Complete testing of pl/tcl, pl/python etc for Truncate Triggers
 * new version of COPY bulk insert patch (v3 in progress)

Great. I assume you left comments on each item.  Thanks.

FYI, the patch queue is down to 580 emails, so we are making good
progress after starting at 2k emails.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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

[HACKERS] Commit fest status

[Bruce Momjian]

FYI, we started the commit fest with 2k emails.  We now have 787 emails
left to process, and many are done but waiting for me to add TODO items
or just delete them.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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