On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:24:20AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 2. The amount of pre-release testing we get from people outside the
> > hard-core development crowd seems to be continuing to decrease.
> > We were fortunate that somebody found the J
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
> list of major features for 9.5. So far we've got RLS and BRIN. I
> expect that GROUPING SETS is far enough along that it should be
> possible to get it in before development ends,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Review is good, but (as history shows) some bugs can slip through even
> extensive review such as the one multixacts got from Noah and Andres.
> Had anyone put some real stress on the beta, we could have noticed some
> of these bugs much ear
FWIW I don't think any amount of process would have gotten multixact to
not have the copious bugs it had. It was just too complex a patch,
doing ugly things to parts too deeply linked to the inner guts of the
server. We might have spared a few with some extra testing (such as the
idiotic wraparou
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:04:43AM -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> > Tom Lane-2 wrote
> > > Robert Haas <
> >
> > > robertmhaas@
> >
> > > > writes:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus <
> >
> > > josh@
> >
> > > > wrote:
>
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:04:43AM -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
> > Robert Haas <
>
> > robertmhaas@
>
> > > writes:
> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus <
>
> > josh@
>
> > > wrote:
> >>> While there were technical
> >>> issues, 9.4 dragged a considerable amou
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I agree. Having your patch disappear into the void is not friendly at all.
> But I don't think a commentless "-1" is the answer, either. That might one
> of the few things worse than silence. Even if the comment is just "This
> seems awfully
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 08:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2014 09:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps we should change the process so that it is the patch author's
>>> responsibility to find a r
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:59:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> The problem is that, on the one hand, we have a number of serious
> problems with things that got committed and turned out to have
> problems - the multixact stuff, and JSONB, in particular - and on the
> other hand, we are lacking in a
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >> The problem with that is that we'll have a hard time to find volunteers for
> >> that. But we only need to find one sucker for each commitfest. I can
> >> volunteer to do that once a year; if the other active c
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Version 1.0 of INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE was posted in August -
>> when development launched. It still doesn't have a reviewer, and it
>> isn't actually in evidence that someone else has so much as downloaded
>> and applied the patch
> I
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> The problem with that is that we'll have a hard time to find volunteers for
>> that. But we only need to find one sucker for each commitfest. I can
>> volunteer to do that once a year; if the other active committers do the
>> same, we're c
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That's one thought. Robert said the same thing about when he was the
> commitfest manager; he just reviewed most the patches himself in the end.
> And you mentioned that Tom used to review 70% of all incoming patches. How
> about we make that official? It's the commitfe
On 12/11/2014 08:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/11/2014 09:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I imagine that it's the same for everyone else. Many of the patches that
sit in the commitfest for weeks are patches that no-one really cares
much about. I'm not sure what to do about that. It would be
On 12/11/2014 08:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> More abstractly, there's a lot of value in having a predictable release
> schedule. That's going to mean that some release cycles are thin on
> user-visible features, even if just as much work went into them. It's
> the nature of the game.
+ 1,000,000 fr
On 12/11/2014 09:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I imagine that it's the same for everyone else. Many of the patches that
> sit in the commitfest for weeks are patches that no-one really cares
> much about. I'm not sure what to do about that. It would be harsh to
> reject a patch just because n
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
>> list of major features for 9.5. So far we've got RLS and BRIN. I
>> expect that GROUPING SETS is far enough alo
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 2. The amount of pre-release testing we get from people outside the
> hard-core development crowd seems to be continuing to decrease.
> We were fortunate that somebody found the JSONB issue before it was
> too late to do anything about it. Per
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
> list of major features for 9.5. So far we've got RLS and BRIN. I
> expect that GROUPING SETS is far enough along that it should be
> possible to get it in before developmen
On 12/11/2014 06:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think 9.4 dragged almost entirely because of one issue: the
compressibility of JSONB.
Meh. While we certainly weren't very speedy about resolving that,
I don't think that issue deserves all or even
David G Johnston wrote
>
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> Robert Haas <
>> robertmhaas@
>> > writes:
>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus <
>> josh@
>> > wrote:
While there were technical
issues, 9.4 dragged a considerable amount because most people were
ignoring it in favor of
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Robert Haas <
> robertmhaas@
> > writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus <
> josh@
> > wrote:
>>> While there were technical
>>> issues, 9.4 dragged a considerable amount because most people were
>>> ignoring it in favor of 9.5 development.
>
>> I think 9.4 d
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think 9.4 dragged almost entirely because of one issue: the
>> compressibility of JSONB.
>
> Meh. While we certainly weren't very speedy about resolving that,
> I don't think that issue deserves all or even most of the blame.
> I agree with J
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:37:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
>> list of major features for 9.5.
> How bad is the 9.5 feature list going to be compared to the 9.4 one that
> had JSONB, but also a lot of
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:37:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
> list of major features for 9.5. So far we've got RLS and BRIN. I
> expect that GROUPING SETS is far enough along that it should be
> possible to get it in before de
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> While there were technical
>> issues, 9.4 dragged a considerable amount because most people were
>> ignoring it in favor of 9.5 development.
> I think 9.4 dragged almost entirely because of one issue: the
> compressibil
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> While there were technical
> issues, 9.4 dragged a considerable amount because most people were
> ignoring it in favor of 9.5 development.
I think 9.4 dragged almost entirely because of one issue: the
compressibility of JSONB. And it became p
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Quite. So, here's a new thread.
>
> MHO is that, although 9.4 has slipped more than any of us would like,
> 9.5 development launched right on time in August. So I don't see a
> good reason to postpone 9.5 release just because 9.4 has slipped.
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So far, I haven't seen any features for 9.5 which would delay a more
> timely release the way we did for 9.4. Anybody know of a bombshell
> someone's going to drop on us for CF5?
>
I had wondered about that myself. What about jsquery? Is th
On 12/10/2014 09:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> On 12/10/2014 05:14 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
But the scheduling of commits with regard to the 9.5 schedule actually
opens a relevant question: When are we planning to rele
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 12/10/2014 05:14 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> But the scheduling of commits with regard to the 9.5 schedule actually
>>> opens a relevant question: When are we planning to release 9.5? Because
>>> If we try ~ one year from
31 matches
Mail list logo
