Re: Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Let's keep this entry open till the last minute. > > Ugh, I don't like keeping things open till the last minute all that > much, especially if they're not being updated. But since this has > been updated I guess it's somewhat moot. > > Are you going to pick this up RSN? If during next week qualifies as RSN, then yes. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Let's keep this entry open till the last minute. Ugh, I don't like keeping things open till the last minute all that much, especially if they're not being updated. But since this has been updated I guess it's somewhat moot. Are you going to pick this up RSN? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
David Steele wrote: > > Sorry about the confusing comment. It could be sometime later half of > > the next week. > > We are now three weeks into the CF with no new patch. > > Are you planning to update this patch? If not, I think it should be > marked as Returned with Feedback and submitted to the next CF once it > has been updated. This is no new development, only code movement. I think it would be worse to have three different branches of partitioning code, v10 "basic", v11 "powerful but not reorganized", v12 "reorganized". I'd rather have only v10 "basic" and v11+ "powerful". Let's keep this entry open till the last minute. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
Hi Amit, On 3/2/18 11:17 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:53 PM, David Steele wrote: >> Hi Amit, >> >> On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >>> >>> Attached updated version. >> >> This patch no longer applies and the conflicts do not appear to be trivial. >> >> I'm a bit confused about your comment in [1]: >> >>> I gave up on rebasing this patch yesterday as I couldn't finish it in >>> 5 minutes, but maybe I will try later this month. Gotta focus on >>> thefaster pruning stuff for now... >> >> How much later are we talking about? > > Sorry about the confusing comment. It could be sometime later half of > the next week. We are now three weeks into the CF with no new patch. Are you planning to update this patch? If not, I think it should be marked as Returned with Feedback and submitted to the next CF once it has been updated. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
Hi David. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:53 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Amit, > > On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: >> >> Attached updated version. > > This patch no longer applies and the conflicts do not appear to be trivial. > > I'm a bit confused about your comment in [1]: > >> I gave up on rebasing this patch yesterday as I couldn't finish it in >> 5 minutes, but maybe I will try later this month. Gotta focus on >> thefaster pruning stuff for now... > > How much later are we talking about? Sorry about the confusing comment. It could be sometime later half of the next week. Thanks, Amit
Re: Re: reorganizing partitioning code
Hi Amit, On 2/16/18 3:36 AM, Amit Langote wrote: > > Attached updated version. This patch no longer applies and the conflicts do not appear to be trivial. I'm a bit confused about your comment in [1]: > I gave up on rebasing this patch yesterday as I couldn't finish it in > 5 minutes, but maybe I will try later this month. Gotta focus on > thefaster pruning stuff for now... How much later are we talking about? Marked Waiting on Author. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/33098109-9ef1-9594-e7d5-0977a50f8cfa%40lab.ntt.co.jp
