On 09/20/2014 06:54 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
CF3 is actually over for a couple of days,
There are different opinions on when a commitfest is over. In my
opinion, the point of a commitfest is that every patch that someone
submits gets enough review so that the patch author knows what he
CF3 is actually over for a couple of days, wouldn't it be better to
bounce back patches marked as waiting on author and work on the rest
needing review?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
Needs Review state.
ISTM that many patches
(a) in 'needs review' actually have a review, or are being thoroughly
discussed
(b) in 'waiting on author' are not really
On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
Needs Review state.
ISTM that many patches
(b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting, because the author
already responded
On 11.9.2014 21:14, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 10.9.2014 22:39, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The bad news is that the rest don't seem to moving graduating from the
Needs Review state.
ISTM that many patches
(b) in 'waiting on author' are not really waiting,
Hi,
I've update my entry.
[rounding up time value less than its unit]
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1507
regards,
-
Tomonari Katsumata
(2014/09/12 7:03), Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 11.9.2014 21:14, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:59, Tomas Vondra
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
5. Better syntax for REINDEX
6. pgcrypto: support PGP signatures
7. pgcrypto: PGP armour headers
[...]
I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
is interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I'm certainly interested in the pgcrypto patches and can look at REINDEX
this weekend.
I'm thinking of picking one of these up, but I'll be on vacation next
week, and so probably won't get to it until the 15th at the
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
5. Better syntax for REINDEX
I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
is interested in them. There was some discussion on the REINDEX
syntax, and whether we want the patch at all. The
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakan...@vmware.com) wrote:
5. Better syntax for REINDEX
I think the latter 3 patches are missing a reviewer because no-one
is interested in them. There was some discussion on the
We now have 32 patches in Needs Review state, and 7 of those don't
have a reviewer assigned. They are:
1. Grouping Sets
2. hash join - dynamic bucket count
3. Enable WAL archiving even in standby
4. Selectivity estimation for inet operators
5. Better syntax for REINDEX
6. pgcrypto: support PGP
Hi
2014-09-03 13:18 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
We now have 32 patches in Needs Review state, and 7 of those don't have
a reviewer assigned. They are:
1. Grouping Sets
I plan to do review of Grouping Sets, but I am afraid so I cannot to do in
next two weeks.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is anybody working on closing out the in progress CommitFest?
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=22
If you or others don't have any objection, then I will do this on
coming weekend.
I
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
In past, I have seen that we try to make sure that each patch
gets atleast one review in CF, so do you think we should try
that this time as well (I think patches which don't have even one
review are not too many). To
At 2014-07-30 13:27:24 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Is anybody working on closing out the in progress CommitFest?
Yes. I was away for a few days, but I'm back at work now and will move
the patches.
-- Abhijit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
At 2014-07-30 13:27:24 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anybody working on closing out the in progress CommitFest?
Yes. I was away for a few days, but I'm back at work now and will move
the patches.
Okay.
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 00:21 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
There's a small additional concern, though, which is that there's an
XPath 2.0 spec out there, and it modifies the type system and data model
rather heavily. So before we go adding functions, it'd probably be wise
to check that we're not
[ having now read the relevant threads a bit more carefully ... ]
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Jul18, 2011, at 22:19 , Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah, it's not clear to me either which of those are still reasonable
candidates for committing as-is.
There are actually three XML-related patches
On Jul20, 2011, at 23:35 , Tom Lane wrote:
I find your argument against XPATH_STRING() a bit unconvincing.
The use case for that is not where you are trying to evaluate an
unknown, arbitrary XPath expression; it's where you are evaluating an
expression that you *know* returns string (ie, it
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
There's a small additional concern, though, which is that there's an
XPath 2.0 spec out there, and it modifies the type system and data model
rather heavily. So before we go adding functions, it'd probably be wise
to check that we're not painting ourselves
On 2011-07-18 21:59, Robert Haas wrote:
There are only two patches left and I think we really ought to try to
take a crack at doing something with them. Yeb is working on the
userspace access vector cache patch, which I think is going drag on
longer than we want keep the CommitFest open, but
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be
applied even if there are semantic errors elsewhere, I'm just as happy
to let Alexey or Florian have a go at it
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 19 12:09:24 -0400 2011:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you mean the business about allowing GUCs in postgresql.conf to be
applied even if there are semantic errors
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As you can probably tell, we are not ready to end the commitfest. (I
think Robert gave me this CF to show why even talking about a one-week
mini-fest is a fantasy. If so, successful.).
Heh, heh. Well, it wasn't that
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
PATCHES WHICH HAVE BEEN UPDATED AND NEED FURTHER REVIEW:
* Cascade Replication
Sorry, too busy reviewing to take note of this. I expect to commit
when its tested and ready.
--
Simon Riggs
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
We're down to three patches that fall into this category: two XML
patches by Florian, which have been somewhat derailed by an argument
about whether values of type xml should, in fact, be required to be
valid xml (I think you know my vote on this
Simon,
* Cascade Replication
Sorry, too busy reviewing to take note of this. I expect to commit
when its tested and ready.
So, would that be this commitfest, or next commitfest?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert,
* Collect frequency statistics and selectivity estimation for arrays
* Allow multiple Postgres clusters running on the same machine to
distinguish themselves in the event log
* lazy vxid locks
I'm not clear on your criteria for moving these patches, as they seem
to be in somewhat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
and an
error-reporting patch that Tom weighed in on over the weekend. This
last suffers from the issue that it's not quite clear whether Tom is
going to do the work or whether he's expecting the submitter to do it.
If you
On Jul18, 2011, at 22:19 , Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
We're down to three patches that fall into this category: two XML
patches by Florian, which have been somewhat derailed by an argument
about whether values of type xml should, in fact, be required to be
valid
On Jul18, 2011, at 22:19 , Tom Lane wrote:
and an
error-reporting patch that Tom weighed in on over the weekend. This
last suffers from the issue that it's not quite clear whether Tom is
going to do the work or whether he's expecting the submitter to do it.
If you mean the business about
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 15:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On a pgbench run with 8
clients on a 32-core machine, I see about a 2% speedup from that patch
on pgbench -S, and it grows to 8% at 32 clients. At 80 clients (but
still just a 32-core box), the results bounce around more, but taking
the
On Jul15, 2011, at 23:05 , Josh Berkus wrote:
* Bugfix for XPATH() if expression returns a scalar value
Well, Peter Eisentraut seemed to disagree with my approach initially,
and seemed to prefer a separate function for XPATH expressions which
return a scalar value.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:25:00PM -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
p.s. One quick heads-up: David Wheeler has reported a possible issue
with Safe 2.21. I hope to investigate that tomorrow.
Actually it's 2.22. 2.21 is already dead.
Oops, typo.
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:39:16 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 05:22:27PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
It's certainly been an interesting introduction to PostgreSQL
development!
Hopefully we haven't scared you off - your work is definitely very
much appreciated (and I at least hope to see you back for 9.1)!
Thanks Robert. That's
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
* Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync. This is really two
patches now, one of which is apparently to be backpatched.
This one (both parts) seems to have crashed and burned on unexpected
portability issues :-(. Do we
I wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
someone else would like to take a
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
someone else
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Listen / Notify rewrite. This is the only one of the remaining
patches that is not marked as Ready for Committer, but I think it
would be good if someone (probably Tom) at least took a look at it.
I'm not sure if it's
Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:14:28PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We're down to 5 patches remaining, and 1 day remaining, so it's time
to try to wrap things up.
* Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl. Andrew Dunstan
is taking care of
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:42:29PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:14:28PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We're down to 5 patches remaining, and 1 day remaining, so it's time
to try to wrap things up.
* Package namespace and Safe
On Feb 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
It's certainly been an interesting introduction to PostgreSQL development!
Interesting, eh? Look forward to your blog post about the experience. ;-P
Tim.
p.s. One quick heads-up: David Wheeler has reported a possible issue
with Safe 2.21. I
It's certainly been an interesting introduction to PostgreSQL
development!
Hopefully we haven't scared you off - your work is definitely very
much appreciated (and I at least hope to see you back for 9.1)!
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
someone else would like to take a look? This
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:14:28PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We're down to 5 patches remaining, and 1 day remaining, so it's time
to try to wrap things up.
* Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl. Andrew Dunstan
is taking care of this one, I believe.
(2010/02/14 13:34), Robert Haas wrote:
* Fix large object support in pg_dump. I think this is just waiting
for a second opinion on whether the approach is correct. I've been
meaning to look at it, but haven't gotten enough round tuits; maybe
someone else would like to take a look? This is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
* Listen / Notify rewrite. This is the only one of the remaining
patches that is not marked as Ready for Committer, but I think it
would be good if someone (probably Tom) at least took a look at it.
I'm not sure if it's committable at this point, but
I will look at this one. It'd be nice to get it in if at all possible,
because the existing listen/notify infrastructure won't play very nicely
with HS --- eg, inspecting pg_listener on the slave might yield the
false impression that some of the slave-side backends had active LISTENs
Robert Haas wrote:
We're down to 5 patches remaining, and 1 day remaining, so it's time
to try to wrap things up.
* Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl. Andrew Dunstan
is taking care of this one, I believe.
I will get this in, with changes as discussed recently.
I also
Hi,
Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
Greg Smith írta:
4) Investigate and be explicit about the potential breakage here both
for libpq clients and at least one additional driver too. If I saw a
demonstration that this didn't break the JDBC driver, for example, I'd
feel a lot better about the
Robert Haas wrote:
Here's an overview of where we stand with the remaining 14 patches,
according to my best understanding of the situation.
* rbtree - I have done a lot of work reviewing this, and Mark
Cave-Ayland has done some work on it, too. But there are some
unanswered performance
Hi,
Greg Smith írta:
Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
I think I can write a review for this one right now based on the
discussion that's already happened:
-Multiple people think the feature is valuable and it seems worth
exploring
-The right way to handle the protocol change here is
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
plpython3 - no reviewer yet
This whole feature seems quite interesting, and I'm really impressed at how
much work James has put into rethinking what a Python PL should look like.
But isn't the fact
Robert Haas escribió:
Furthermore, if we are going to ever change this in an incompatible
way that may break clients, isn't 9.0 exactly the right time to do
that? If that doesn't scream big changes coming, proceed with
caution, I don't know what would.
I agree with this -- if we're ever
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Waiting for Re-Review (5)
=
Writeable CTEs
Set this ready for commit. For such a small patch, it's a wonderful
feature. I think it deserves a fair shot on this 'fest.
insert/returning/subquery is
Robert Haas wrote:
Some of the perl patches
have not yet been reviewed either, but I'm a little less concerned
about those because it seems that Andrew is working on those anyway:
still, if anyone feels inclined to volunteer, I believe Andrew has
said he would appreciate another pair of eyes.
Robert Haas wrote:
Waiting for Initial Review (4)
==
plpython3 - no reviewer yet
This whole feature seems quite interesting, and I'm really impressed at
how much work James has put into rethinking what a Python PL should look
like. But isn't the fact that there
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a committer
field that only appears when the status is
Robert Haas wrote:
I'm happy with Andrew's interpretation --- I just want a separate text
field for inserting a committer's name. I don't want any magic behavior
of that field.
OK, I'll add a separate text field for the committer's name, but for
now it won't display on the summary
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Considering that one of those was a holiday week with a lot of schedule
disruption proceeding it, I don't know how much faster things could have
moved. There were large chunks of the reviewer volunteers who wanted only
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
Robert acknowledged the need for a claimed by committer
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
Robert acknowledged the need for
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It would also like to clarify the use case for this a little bit more.
Is this just to track patches which committers are in the process of
committing (or have committed)? Or would a committer potentially set
this on some patch that was still being reviewed, and if so
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It would also like to clarify the use case for this a little bit more.
Is this just to track patches which committers are in the process of
committing (or have committed)? Or would a committer
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert acknowledged the need for a claimed by committer field in the
fest application, but he hasn't got round to it yet.
Sorry I haven't gotten around to this. Beyond being a
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a committer
field that only appears when the status is Claimed by Committer or
Committed and the contents of that field could be displayed in
parentheses in the status column, like this: Claimed by
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
If we went with Bruce's interpretation, we could have a committer
field that only appears when the status is Claimed by Committer or
Committed and the contents of that field could be
BTW, if you have time for any purely cosmetic details ... the way the
CommitFest field on a patch detail page works has always struck me as
weird. It's a data field, and so if it has any behavior at all that
behavior ought to involve modifying its value. But what it actually is
is a navigation
Robert Haas wrote:
OK, I'll add a separate text field for the committer's name, but for
now it won't display on the summary page, just the detail page.
Perhaps it could go underneath the reviewer names, maybe in a different
color. (And yes, like many of us I suck at GUI design, so
Bruce Momjian wrote:
So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
being committed?
That's generally how things were expected to happen--to at least
double-check that the proposed fixes match what
Greg Smith wrote:
If the need here is to speed up how fast things are fed to committers,
we can certainly do that. The current process still favors having
reviewers do as much as possible first, as shown by all the stuff
sitting in the re-review queue. The work we're waiting on them for
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
As I have observed before, I think we need some infrastructure to help
committers claim items, so we don't duplicate work.
Robert acknowledged the need for a claimed by committer field in the
fest application, but he hasn't got round to it yet. In
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to look at the YAML format for EXPLAIN patch shortly.
Do we have consensus yet that we want YAML? It seemed, well,
yet another format without all that much advantage over what's
there.
Legibility++
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to look at the YAML format for EXPLAIN patch shortly.
Do we have consensus yet that we want YAML? It seemed, well,
yet another format without all that much advantage over what's
there.
I think you and I are the two main skeptics
Personally I was thinking of multi-threaded pgbench as being
Tatsuo-san's to commit, since that's his code originally.
Ah see well that's why I post these summaries... :-)
Thanks. I consider it a great honor to be allowed to commit the
pacthes.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
--
Sent
Personally I was thinking of multi-threaded pgbench as being
Tatsuo-san's to commit, since that's his code originally.
Ah see well that's why I post these summaries... :-)
Thanks. I consider it a great honor to be allowed to commit the
pacthes.
Patch committed.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Tatsuo Ishiiis...@postgresql.org wrote:
Personally I was thinking of multi-threaded pgbench as being
Tatsuo-san's to commit, since that's his code originally.
Ah see well that's why I post these summaries... :-)
Thanks. I consider it a great honor to be
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Unspecified Committer (3)
=
GRANT ON ALL IN schema
DefaultACLs
multi-threaded pgbench
Personally I was thinking of multi-threaded pgbench as being
Tatsuo-san's to commit, since that's his code originally.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Unspecified Committer (3)
=
GRANT ON ALL IN schema
DefaultACLs
multi-threaded pgbench
Personally I was thinking of multi-threaded pgbench as being
Tatsuo-san's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
... One thing I have belatedly realized about this
CommitFest is that we (or at least, I) did not think about asking the
committers about their schedules, and it turns out that three of
--On Sonntag, Juli 26, 2009 15:43:28 -0400 Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Joe is back in the next week, but I'm not sure about Michael or
Heikki.
Michael is on vacation, he's back next week.
--
Thanks
Bernd
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
... One thing I have belatedly realized about this
CommitFest is that we (or at least, I) did not think about asking the
committers about their schedules, and it turns out that three of them
- Heikki, Michael Meskes, Joe Conway - are away at the
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
... One thing I have belatedly realized about this
CommitFest is that we (or at least, I) did not think about asking the
committers about their schedules, and it turns out that three
Robert Haas wrote:
I think Joe is back in the next week, but I'm not sure about Michael or
Heikki.
I'll be back on Monday 3rd of August.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Tom Lane napsal(a):
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
There is Collation at database level patch.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg00019.php
Zdenek Kotala napsal(a):
Tom Lane napsal(a):
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
There is Collation at database level patch.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
we noticed the libpq events (hooks) patch was missing...so we
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 17:38:28 Josh Berkus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:19:39 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
I haven't yet committed the dblink patch posted here:
Joe Conway wrote:
I haven't yet committed the dblink patch posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-06/msg00016.php
Should I post it on the wiki before committing? Either way I'll commit
in the next day or so.
It doesn't matter. Patches are only listed in the wiki
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:19:39 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it's July 1, and time for another commit fest to begin.
Do we have all the submitted patches queued up at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:2008-07 ?
I think Bruce and I have added everything submitted to June
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The first commitfest has been on for about a week now, but I haven't
seem much festivities going on.
Do we plan to drain Bruce's patch queue completely during this
commitfest? Or the items on the developer wiki TODO:PatchStatus list?
When do we declare the
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first commitfest has been on for about a week now, but I haven't
seem much festivities going on.
Yeah, we are a bit behind on starting it :-(. Bruce was traveling
until the end of February and is still not caught up on updating
his list of open
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first commitfest has been on for about a week now, but I haven't
seem much festivities going on.
Yeah, we are a bit behind on starting it :-(. Bruce was traveling
until the end of February and is still not caught up on
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right at the moment the raw data is still in Bruce's patch queue.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that that isn't going to work;
we can't have one man being a complete bottleneck for the entire
process. I concur with your other suggestion to try
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right at the moment the raw data is still in Bruce's patch queue.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that that isn't going to work;
we can't have one man being a complete bottleneck for the entire
process. I concur with
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The bottom line is that this going to be painful no matter how we go at
it:
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
Yup.
There are nine pages now. The patch queue will be twice that size once
I am done. I am trying to trim but it is difficult.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The bottom line is that this going to be painful no matter how we go at
it:
http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
Yup.
There are nine pages now. The patch queue will be twice that size once
I am done. I am trying to trim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:29:13 -0300
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right at the moment the raw data is still in Bruce's patch queue.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that that isn't going to
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
