[HACKERS] CommitFest wrap-up
As some of you probably noticed, I just made a sweep through everything that was marked "Waiting on Author" in the CommitFest and hadn't been updated in the last couple of days. Most of those I marked as "Returned with Feedback", but some of them got some other status, one I committed, and a few I just sent a ping of some sort to the thread. With that cleanup, things now look like this: Needs review: 46. Waiting on Author: 21. Ready for Committer: 18. Committed: 94. Moved to next CF: 1. Rejected: 12. Returned with Feedback: 27. Total: 219. There is obviously a good bit of stuff that has been marked "Ready for Committer"; it would be good if committers could take a look at those and see if they agree that a commit might be possible without undue effort. There is also a lot of stuff that is still in a "Needs Review" state. I suspect a good amount of that stuff has actually had some review, and if somebody wants to help, it would be great to go through those entries and change the status of any of them that are not actually waiting for review - i.e. if they have been reviewed and are awaiting an update, mark them as "Waiting on Author". This will help us separate the things that still really deserve a look from the stuff that has already had one. The things that haven't had any review yet should get a review if that's at all possible. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any committer pick this up? > Tom, are you still planning to pick these two up? They've been > basically collecting dust for over two months now, or in one case > three months, and we're running out of time. Yes, I will get to them. I haven't yet put my head down into full commit fest mode... 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. > - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any > committer pick this up? >> Will take a look at these two also. >> >>> Tom, what is your time frame on this? I think we should wrap up the >>> CF without these and bundle 9.1alpha3 unless you plan to get to this >>> in the next day or two. >> >> We probably shouldn't hold up the alpha for these, if there are no >> other items outstanding. > > OK. I've moved them to the next CommitFest and marked this one closed. Tom, are you still planning to pick these two up? They've been basically collecting dust for over two months now, or in one case three months, and we're running out of time. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any committer pick this up? > >>> Will take a look at these two also. > >> Tom, what is your time frame on this? I think we should wrap up the >> CF without these and bundle 9.1alpha3 unless you plan to get to this >> in the next day or two. > > We probably shouldn't hold up the alpha for these, if there are no > other items outstanding. OK. I've moved them to the next CommitFest and marked this one closed. *bangs gavel* -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. >>> - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any >>> committer pick this up? >> Will take a look at these two also. > Tom, what is your time frame on this? I think we should wrap up the > CF without these and bundle 9.1alpha3 unless you plan to get to this > in the next day or two. We probably shouldn't hold up the alpha for these, if there are no other items outstanding. 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. >>> - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any >>> committer pick this up? > > Will take a look at these two also. Tom, what is your time frame on this? I think we should wrap up the CF without these and bundle 9.1alpha3 unless you plan to get to this in the next day or two. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
Tom Lane wrote: - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any committer pick this up? Will take a look at these two also. I marked you down at the listed committer for them both. That leaves "serializable lock consistency" as the only patch that's left in "Ready for Committer" state; everything else seemed to me to still have some kinks left to work out and I marked them returned. Given that patch has been in that state since 9/24 and Florian even took care of the bit rot yesterday, it's certainly been queued patiently enough waiting for attention. Obviously you, Robert, and other committers can work on one of the patches I bounced instead if you think they're close enough to slip in. But this serializable lock one is the only submission that I think hasn't gotten a fair share of attention yet. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Supportwww.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest wrap-up
Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> - fix for seg picksplit function - I don't have confidence this change >> is for the best and can't take responsibility for it. It needs review >> by a committer who understands this stuff better than me and can >> determine whether or not the change is really an improvement. > Still outstanding. I will take a look at that one --- it is a bug fix at bottom, so we can't just drop it for lack of reviewers. >> - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. >> - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any >> committer pick this up? Will take a look at these two also. 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Dec15, 2010, at 17:17 , Robert Haas wrote: > Nah, don't bother reposting. It'd be helpful if you could add a link > to that message on the CF app though. Already done. Seems we've hit a race condition there - you must have overlooked the signalling the semaphore on my rooftop did to warn you... best regards, Florian Pflug -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Dec15, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: >>> On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: >> - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs >> rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, >> because I think this is a really important change. > I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from > bit-rot. Would that help? Yes! >>> >>> I've rebased the patch to the current HEAD, and re-run my FK concurrency >>> test suite, >>> available from https://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency, to verify that things >>> still work. >> >> Thanks, but, EWRONGTHREAD. > > Sorry for that. I wasn't sure whether to post this here or into the original > thread, > and it seems I ended up on the losing side of that 50-50 chance ;-) > > Want me to repost there, or just remember to use the correct thread next time? Nah, don't bother reposting. It'd be helpful if you could add a link to that message on the CF app though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Dec15, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: > - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs > rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, > because I think this is a really important change. I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from bit-rot. Would that help? >>> >>> Yes! >> >> I've rebased the patch to the current HEAD, and re-run my FK concurrency >> test suite, >> available from https://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency, to verify that things >> still work. > > Thanks, but, EWRONGTHREAD. Sorry for that. I wasn't sure whether to post this here or into the original thread, and it seems I ended up on the losing side of that 50-50 chance ;-) Want me to repost there, or just remember to use the correct thread next time? best regards, Florian Pflug -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, because I think this is a really important change. >>> I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from bit-rot. >>> Would that help? >> >> Yes! > > I've rebased the patch to the current HEAD, and re-run my FK concurrency test > suite, > available from https://github.com/fgp/fk_concurrency, to verify that things > still work. Thanks, but, EWRONGTHREAD. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > - fix for seg picksplit function - I don't have confidence this change > is for the best and can't take responsibility for it. It needs review > by a committer who understands this stuff better than me and can > determine whether or not the change is really an improvement. Still outstanding. > - unlogged tables - This is not going to get fully resolved in the > next two days. I'll move it to the next CF and keep plugging away at > it. Moved. > - instrument checkpoint sync calls - I plan to commit this in the next > 48 hours. (Hopefully Greg Smith will do the cleanup I suggested, if > not I'll do it.) Committed. > - explain analyze getrusage tracking - It seems clear to mark this as > Returned with Feedback. Marked return with Feedback. > - synchronous replication - and... > - synchronous replication, transaction-controlled - If we want to get > this feature into 9.1, we had better get a move on. But I don't > currently have it in my time budget to deal with this. Neither patch applies, and Simon's was also labelled WIP. Marked both Returned with Feedback. > - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs > rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, > because I think this is a really important change. > - MERGE command - Returned with Feedback? Not sure where we stand with this. Still outstanding. > - Add primary key using an existing index - Returned with Feedback > unless a committer is available immediately to pick this up and finish > it off. Returned with Feedback. Looks like author is planning to rework this one. > - SQL/MED - core functionality - Seems clear to move this to the next > CF and keep working on it. Moved. > - Idle in transaction cancellation V3 - I think this is waiting on > further review. Can anyone work on this one RSN? Reviewed, but no doubt there's more work left to be done here than is going to happen in this CF. > - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. > - Per-column collation - Bump to next CF, unless Peter is planning to > commit imminently. Both still outstanding. I suppose these will have to be moved to the next CommitFest. > - Tab completion in psql for triggers on views - Added to CF late, > suggest we bump it to the next CF where it will have a leg up by > virtue of already being marked Ready for Committer. Partially committed. I'll see if I can find time to commit the rest; otherwise, I'll move it along to the next CF. > - SQL/MED - file_fdw - Discussion is ongoing, but I see no harm in > marking this Returned with Feedback for now in anticipation of a new > version before CF 2011-01. > - SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw - Hasn't received as much review, I think, > so should probably be moved to next CF as-is. Per recommendation from Greg Smith, moved to next CF. > - Label switcher function (trusted procedure) - I plan to commit this > with whatever changes are needed within the next 48 hours. Committed. > - Extensions - Still under active discussion, suggested we move to next CF. > - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any > committer pick this up? > - Crash dump handler for Windows. Magnus? > - Directory archive format for pg_dump. Heikki? These are all still outstanding. > - WIP patch for parallel dump. Returned with Feedback? Returned with Feedback, with some reluctance, but nothing else seems reasonable. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: >> - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs >> rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, >> because I think this is a really important change. > I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from bit-rot. > Would that help? Yes! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Dec13, 2010, at 18:37 , Robert Haas wrote: > We're now just a day or two from the end of this CommitFest and there > are still a LOT of open patches - to be specific, 23.Here's a brief > synopsis of where we are with the others, all IMO of course. Thanks for putting this together! > - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs > rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, > because I think this is a really important change. I can try to find some time to update the patch if it suffers from bit-rot. Would that help? best regards, Florian Pflug -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 12/13/10 9:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> - synchronous replication - and... >> - synchronous replication, transaction-controlled - If we want to get >> this feature into 9.1, we had better get a move on. But I don't >> currently have it in my time budget to deal with this. > > I thought we'd covered most of the major issues here. What's holding > these up? I don't know where you got that idea. We have two competing patches neither of which has been updated in several months. And neither of which has gotten a whole lot of review, either. We spent a lot of time arguing about basic design and then everyone got tired and went on doing other things. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
Robert Haas wrote: - instrument checkpoint sync calls - I plan to commit this in the next 48 hours. (Hopefully Greg Smith will do the cleanup I suggested, if not I'll do it.) Yes, doing that tonight so you can have a simple (hopefully) bit of work to commit tomorrow. - MERGE command - Returned with Feedback? Not sure where we stand with this. That's waiting for me to do another round of review. I'm getting to that soon I hope, maybe tomorrow. - SQL/MED - file_fdw - Discussion is ongoing, but I see no harm in marking this Returned with Feedback for now in anticipation of a new version before CF 2011-01. - SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw - Hasn't received as much review, I think, so should probably be moved to next CF as-is. I was thinking of just moving both of those into the next CF without adding any clear resolution code--then they can get worked on as feasible after the core goes in. All in all it's disappointing to have so many major patches outstanding at this point in the CommitFest, but I think we're just going to have to make the best of it. I've done a pretty lame job of pushings thing forward here, but I don't think things have progressed that badly. The community produced several large and/or multi-part patches that the CF could have choked on, and instead they've been broken into digestible chunks and kept chewing through them. I'm just glad that's happening in this CF, rather than a pile like this showing up for the last one. Thanks for the wrap-up summary, I was going to do something like that myself tonight but you beat me to it. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Supportwww.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On 12/13/10 9:37 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > - synchronous replication - and... > - synchronous replication, transaction-controlled - If we want to get > this feature into 9.1, we had better get a move on. But I don't > currently have it in my time budget to deal with this. I thought we'd covered most of the major issues here. What's holding these up? -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.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] CommitFest wrap-up
"David E. Wheeler" writes: > On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> So, who's in to finish up and commit this patch in this round? :) > > I'll try to do another review this week. Thanks! -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > So, who's in to finish up and commit this patch in this round? :) > I certainly am ready to support last minute changes, given some are > required. And if they are too big for the schedule, better shake the > patch out now rather than let it bitrot another month. I'll try to do another review this week. David -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
Robert Haas writes: > We're now just a day or two from the end of this CommitFest and there > are still a LOT of open patches - to be specific, 23.Here's a brief > synopsis of where we are with the others, all IMO of course. Thanks for doing this! > - Extensions - Still under active discussion, suggested we move to > next CF. Well, it might be confusing to follow those threads at about any distance but in fact, the only active one left is about some details concerning the ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE command, which is *not* to be in this commit fest but (hopefully) the next. I think the main extension patch is about as ready as it can be now, I've only been fixing nitpicks and interfacing for awhile (all along this commit fest) and the underlying code has been very stable. As we want to avoid pushing "big" patches into the last commit fest, I'd very like it if we could have a last round of review-then-commit on this patch. Of course it's still possible to work on it in between two commit fests, but that's not a good idea: this is a very restrained time when the more involved people here can work on their own ideas. So, who's in to finish up and commit this patch in this round? :) I certainly am ready to support last minute changes, given some are required. And if they are too big for the schedule, better shake the patch out now rather than let it bitrot another month. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:19 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:37:52PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> We're now just a day or two from the end of this CommitFest and there >> are still a LOT of open patches - to be specific, 23.Here's a brief >> synopsis of where we are with the others, all IMO of course. > > [snip] >> - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. > > What is it about this that's so complex? It's not like it could > impinge on previous functionality, at least at the SQL level. I didn't say it was complex, although it is. I said I think we need Tom to pick it up. That's partly because he's likely to have overpoweringly strong opinions on how it should work, which may make it unproductive for someone else to spend time on it. Also, it is complex, and regardless of what effects it has on anything else, it does need to work. Tom is good at that. >> - Tab completion in psql for triggers on views - Added to CF late, >> suggest we bump it to the next CF where it will have a leg up by >> virtue of already being marked Ready for Committer. > > People are, by the way, allowed to commit patches outside of CFs. I > had submitted it imagining that its triviality would allow this, which > is why it got into the CF late in the first place. You can insist all you like that your favorite patches are trivial, but that doesn't make it so. I am well aware that patches can be committed between CommitFests. For example: git log --author=Haas --since=2010-10-16 --before=2010-11-14 >> All in all it's disappointing to have so many major patches >> outstanding at this point in the CommitFest, but I think we're just >> going to have to make the best of it. > > I'm thinking that given all these givens, we should make the best of > it with more CF in March. We don't want a repeat of the "last-minute > giant change" anti-pattern, and even if we're releasing 9.1 in July, > three months plus is plenty of time to shake things out. -1. That's as likely to make the back-up of big patches worse as it is to make it better. Maybe more likely. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:37:52PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > We're now just a day or two from the end of this CommitFest and there > are still a LOT of open patches - to be specific, 23.Here's a brief > synopsis of where we are with the others, all IMO of course. [snip] > - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. What is it about this that's so complex? It's not like it could impinge on previous functionality, at least at the SQL level. > - Tab completion in psql for triggers on views - Added to CF late, > suggest we bump it to the next CF where it will have a leg up by > virtue of already being marked Ready for Committer. People are, by the way, allowed to commit patches outside of CFs. I had submitted it imagining that its triviality would allow this, which is why it got into the CF late in the first place. [etc., etc., etc.] > All in all it's disappointing to have so many major patches > outstanding at this point in the CommitFest, but I think we're just > going to have to make the best of it. I'm thinking that given all these givens, we should make the best of it with more CF in March. We don't want a repeat of the "last-minute giant change" anti-pattern, and even if we're releasing 9.1 in July, three months plus is plenty of time to shake things out. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/13/2010 12:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> - SQL/MED - core functionality - Seems clear to move this to the next >> CF and keep working on it. > > [...] >> >> - SQL/MED - file_fdw - Discussion is ongoing, but I see no harm in >> marking this Returned with Feedback for now in anticipation of a new >> version before CF 2011-01. >> - SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw - Hasn't received as much review, I think, >> so should probably be moved to next CF as-is. >> > > Don't we need the core patch before the FDW patches? I hope that the core > patch is completed and committed ASAP so we have a chance to get the FDW > patches in. The core patch will certainly need to be committed first. But I doubt that's going to happen in the next few days. If we get it in before the next CF starts, I think we'll be doing very well. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- 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] CommitFest wrap-up
On 12/13/2010 12:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote: - SQL/MED - core functionality - Seems clear to move this to the next CF and keep working on it. [...] - SQL/MED - file_fdw - Discussion is ongoing, but I see no harm in marking this Returned with Feedback for now in anticipation of a new version before CF 2011-01. - SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw - Hasn't received as much review, I think, so should probably be moved to next CF as-is. Don't we need the core patch before the FDW patches? I hope that the core patch is completed and committed ASAP so we have a chance to get the FDW patches in. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] CommitFest wrap-up
We're now just a day or two from the end of this CommitFest and there are still a LOT of open patches - to be specific, 23.Here's a brief synopsis of where we are with the others, all IMO of course. - fix for seg picksplit function - I don't have confidence this change is for the best and can't take responsibility for it. It needs review by a committer who understands this stuff better than me and can determine whether or not the change is really an improvement. - unlogged tables - This is not going to get fully resolved in the next two days. I'll move it to the next CF and keep plugging away at it. - instrument checkpoint sync calls - I plan to commit this in the next 48 hours. (Hopefully Greg Smith will do the cleanup I suggested, if not I'll do it.) - explain analyze getrusage tracking - It seems clear to mark this as Returned with Feedback. - synchronous replication - and... - synchronous replication, transaction-controlled - If we want to get this feature into 9.1, we had better get a move on. But I don't currently have it in my time budget to deal with this. - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, because I think this is a really important change. - MERGE command - Returned with Feedback? Not sure where we stand with this. - Add primary key using an existing index - Returned with Feedback unless a committer is available immediately to pick this up and finish it off. - SQL/MED - core functionality - Seems clear to move this to the next CF and keep working on it. - Idle in transaction cancellation V3 - I think this is waiting on further review. Can anyone work on this one RSN? - Writeable CTEs - I think we need Tom to pick this one up. - Per-column collation - Bump to next CF, unless Peter is planning to commit imminently. - Tab completion in psql for triggers on views - Added to CF late, suggest we bump it to the next CF where it will have a leg up by virtue of already being marked Ready for Committer. - SQL/MED - file_fdw - Discussion is ongoing, but I see no harm in marking this Returned with Feedback for now in anticipation of a new version before CF 2011-01. - SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw - Hasn't received as much review, I think, so should probably be moved to next CF as-is. - Label switcher function (trusted procedure) - I plan to commit this with whatever changes are needed within the next 48 hours. - Extensions - Still under active discussion, suggested we move to next CF. - Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies - Ready for committer. Can any committer pick this up? - Crash dump handler for Windows. Magnus? - Directory archive format for pg_dump. Heikki? - WIP patch for parallel dump. Returned with Feedback? All in all it's disappointing to have so many major patches outstanding at this point in the CommitFest, but I think we're just going to have to make the best of it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
